Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

NEW WRIT

Ordered,

That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the County Constituency of Falkirk, West in the room of Dennis Canavan, Esquire, who since his election for the said County Constituency has accepted the Office of Steward or Bailiff of Her Majesty's Manor of Northstead in the County of York.—[Mrs. Ann Taylor.]

Oral Answers to Questions — CABINET OFFICE

The Minister was asked—

Drugs

Miss Anne Begg: What recent discussions she has had with other departments regarding public information on the long term effects of designer drugs, with specific reference to ecstasy. [139175]

The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr. Ian McCartney): My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office apologises to the House for her absence. She is unwell and will not be undertaking ministerial duties today.
My right hon. Friend regularly meets ministerial colleagues to discuss various aspects of the Government's anti-drug strategy, including the need to raise public awareness of the potential harm that drugs, including ecstasy, can cause. Since 1994, ecstasy has been associated with nearly 80 tragic cases in which people have died as a result of taking those tablets. Short-term effects of taking ecstasy include anxiety, panic attacks, confused episodes, first-time epileptic fits and paranoid states. Longer-term harm includes memory loss.

Miss Begg: Although the drug of choice for many in the older generation is alcohol, many in the younger generation choose designer drugs such as ecstasy, and they often use the two drugs interchangeably. My fear is that there might be long-term psychological effects of taking ecstasy, even after using it just a few times, so are

the Government carrying out research or other work to highlight those psychological effects, which people might not experience at the time of taking the drugs?

Mr. McCartney: I, like my hon. Friend, am worried that that might be the case. Such issues are closely monitored by the Government. As a consequence, I can set out the effects of taking such drugs.
We need to involve young people in an awareness campaign. In Liverpool a few weeks ago we launched a campaign involving club owners because most ecstasy and so-called designer drugs are sold or used in a drug-related environment in clubs. For the first time, we are asking clubs to take medical action on the premises to ensure that if young people get into trouble through using drugs, we can sustain them and get them off the drugs. That is vital. As well as getting the message across, we must ensure that facilities are available when young people get damaged, as they will be, by ecstasy.

Mr. Nigel Evans: Will the Minister pass on our best wishes to the Minister for the Cabinet Office? We hope that she makes a speedy recovery.
What can the Minister do to remove the appeal of ecstasy as a so-called designer drug? He is right that in many areas it is associated with clubbing. Many people who take ecstasy do not mix it with alcohol but take it with water. Young people need to be better educated on the downside of taking the drug, so that they know not only that it tragically and instantly kills many young people, but that it has long-term effects. What research is being done into the long-term effects of taking ecstasy, and what can the Minister do to get that information to young clubbers?

Mr. McCartney: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his gracious words. I am sure that my right hon. Friend perked up as soon as she heard them. No doubt all my hon. Friends would join us in wishing her well.
The hon. Gentleman is right. It is critical that information be provided to young people, but it must be done in a way that is acceptable to them. It is okay for a fuddy-duddy 50-year-old like me to prattle on about drug abuse, but young people do not necessarily listen to fuddy-duddies. The "Check Your Life" campaign involves young people's peer groups talking to them about the danger of drugs. The programme also provides advice about not taking drugs, and what to do if young people are taking drugs, so that they can get help to come off them.

Mr. Ken Purchase: Does the Minister agree that, given the nature of profit-hungry pharmaceutical companies with shareholders, if we were foolish enough to legitimise designer drugs we would be in danger of those companies spending more and more of their research and development budgets on such drugs, looking for big profits, rather than on pharmaceuticals that would benefit the whole population? Will he assure the House that it is not in his mind to go down that route?

Mr. McCartney: Absolutely not; in no circumstances would we do that. During the next three years we shall spend substantially more on tackling the drugs that


come into this country, and the criminal gangs who use criminals with scientific qualifications to prepare such drugs so that they can be sold for profit. The Government want to smash such organisations, put those who sell such drugs behind bars and throw away the keys.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: What priorities for action she has identified following publication of the UK anti-drugs co-ordinator's second annual report. [139176]

The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr. Ian McCartney): Our priorities are to build on the successes that we have demonstrated in the annual report. Our new investment will bring total annual expenditure on tackling the root causes of drug misuse to nearly £1 billion in 2003–04, targeting young people, and doubling spending on drug education and prevention from £63 million this year to £129 million in 2003–04; raising funding for treatment services from £234 million to £401 million, enabling us to expand and improve those services; doubling spending on safeguarding communities from £45 million this year to £95 million; and raising funding to prevent availability through conservative law enforcement activity from £353 million to a projected £380 million. That will help us to meet the strategy's challenging targets for 2008.

Mrs. Winterton: Is the right hon. Gentleman alarmed by figures recently released by the Office for National Statistics that show that, contrary to previous predictions, the number of children aged between 11 and 15 taking drugs continued to rise last year? As the Government's 10-year strategy appears to be failing to deliver for those youngsters, what further measures will be taken to address that deteriorating situation?

Mr. McCartney: I, like the hon. Lady, read the report with interest, and a number of factors emerged from it. First, the proportion of 11 to 15-year-olds who used drugs in the last month was 7 per cent.—the same as in 1998. The fact is that 85 per cent. of teenagers aged 11 to 15 have never tried drugs, and that is a credit to their common sense and the quality of the anti-drugs education that they receive at school.
However, we are not satisfied with that, so alongside the £21 million invested in schools education programmes, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education announced a fortnight ago another £7 million to be spent on anti-drugs education in schools. We are not resting on our laurels. The Government will take further action if there is change of any sort. Our 10-year strategy—a 10-year struggle against drugs—is supported throughout Britain. It has achieved results so far, and it will continue to do so.

Dr. Brian Iddon: The annual report contains little information on drug fatalities resulting from misuse of drugs. I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware of the report on reducing drug-related deaths produced for the Home Office in the summer. Are the Government making any attempt to sharpen up the information on the precise number of drug-related deaths, which is a mystery at the moment?

Mr. McCartney: I assure my hon. Friend that he will receive an answer in response to Question 11, whether we

reach it this afternoon or not, stating that we are considering the report on drug-related deaths, which covers what my hon. Friend describes as sharpening up the information about the causes of drug-related deaths. In addition, research is under way into what happens to people in the first year after leaving prison in terms of drug-related damage and deaths. We shall use that information to hone and improve our programmes further to provide stability and opportunities for people to come off drugs.

Ombudsman System

Mr. Bill O'Brien: What steps have been taken to improve the ombudsman system. [139177]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Graham Stringer): In April this year, Phillip Collcutt and Mary Hourihan produced a survey of the services provided by the ombudsmen, which the Government used as the basis for a consultation document released in April. At present, the Government are considering the 250 responses to that document and we hope to give our views early in the new year

Mr. O'Brien: I welcome the steps that the Government are taking to try to review the system of ombudsman services for individuals in our communities. While my hon. Friend considers responses to the consultation exercise, will he pay particular heed to the fact that the ombudsman service to citizens would be greatly improved if people were allowed to contact the ombudsman direct? Will he also take up with ombudsmen the question of correcting mistakes in published responses to submissions to their offices?

Mr. Stringer: Both the review and the Select Committee on Public Administration recommended that the MP filter be removed, as did virtually every consultee who wrote in to the original review. The Select Committee also asked Members of Parliament for their views, and they differed from the other consultees, as a majority of them wished to retain the MP filter—although in the latest survey, the number who wish to do so has fallen compared with the numbers in previous surveys. The Government will take into account all the views expressed in both consultations.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: Why is there no ombudsman for Members of Parliament? What can we do when Ministers consistently take too long to reply, give inaccurate replies or cannot even be bothered to put their names on the bottom of their letters?

Mr. Stringer: If the hon. Gentleman requires the assistance of an ombudsman, he should consider his position in the House. Most Members of Parliament are elected by the people whom they represent. Members on both sides of the House do their best, and do not need help from anybody outside to do their job. However, if the hon. Gentleman feels that he does need help, he should consider further.

Tony Wright: Does my hon. Friend accept that there are real difficulties with the ombudsman schemes? As we try to get closer working between


different services, especially health and social services, complainants are faced with the difficulty of dealing with ombudsman systems that work quite differently. If we are to get joined-up government, we need joined-up complaints systems. I welcome the review, but will my hon. Friend make sure that its results produce legislation as soon as possible?

Mr. Stringer: Obviously, I am not going to pre-empt any decisions on the legislative programme. My hon. Friend is right, as provision for each of the three ombudsmen—the health service ombudsman, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and the local government ombudsman—is made in three different pieces of legislation. The consultation document and the report by Collcutt and Hourihan point out that, as my hon. Friend says, there are overlapping areas, especially in health and social services, where the ombudsman's remit is not clear, or to which it does not extend. The changing nature of local government means that certain services have been taken out of local government and others have been put in, so some of the provisions of the Act that set up the office of local government ombudsman in 1967 are probably now inappropriate. That is why the reviews recommended a single commission, with generic ombudsmen covering the whole area of public services.

Mr. John Bercow: What are the trends in the numbers of complaints to the ombudsman schemes? Is the hon. Gentleman content with the average time that the various ombudsmen take to make decisions? What is the proportion of cases that ombudsmen decide do not come under their aegis, notwithstanding the fact that prima facie there appear to be good grounds to consider them?

Mr. Stringer: The hon. Gentleman asks an interesting question. The local government ombudsman is currently dealing with 15,000 to 18,000 cases a year. On average, cases dealt with by the health service ombudsman take two years to complete. The local government ombudsman takes six weeks to three months to deal with a case. The Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration deals with only slightly more than 100 cases a year. The review will consider areas in which the overlap in matters under investigation causes a problem. It will also examine what inhibits ombudsmen from doing an even more effective job than they do at present, and will look at their efficiency. The report expresses the belief that the ombudsmen will be more efficient and effective if they are all in one commission, even though there will be more cases. The Public Administration Committee cast doubt on that assertion, but there is little doubt that removing the MP filter would lead to an increase in the number of cases.

Drugs

Mr. Alan Simpson: What assessment she has made of the implications for the Government's drugs policies of decriminalising cannabis. [139178]

The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr. Ian McCartney): The Government's policy on all illicit drugs, including cannabis, is based on scientific evidence of the harm they cause. On the basis of that evidence,

which the Government keep under review, we have no plans to decriminalise cannabis for recreational use. For example, a 1997 World Health Organisation report found that cannabis had acute and chronic health effects, including impairment of concentration and damage to mental health, learning capacity and manual dexterity. It also has an impact on respiratory diseases, including bronchitis and lung cancer.

Mr. Simpson: I am sure that the Minister will remember the lobby of Parliament by sufferers of multiple sclerosis, which took place just before the summer recess. In meetings that were held around the Palace at that time, I spoke to many of those who were lobbying us and asked whether any of them there had not used cannabis for the symptomatic relief of their suffering, but I could not find one who had not. Does my right hon. Friend accept that no useful purpose would have been served by arresting and charging those MS sufferers, and that there is precious little social gain in criminalising the 97,000 people—mainly young people—who are arrested each year on cannabis-related charges? Does he also accept that sooner rather than later the House needs to recognise that we should reclassify cannabis within the same regulatory constraints that apply to alcohol and tobacco?

Mr. McCartney: I can tell my hon. Friend two things. First, he should not confuse the medicinal use of cannabis with the dangers associated with uncontrolled use of the drug for illicit purposes. Secondly, the Government are currently licensing a major cannabis- based medicines development initiative conducted by GW Pharmaceuticals, as well as supporting scientific research projects into possible benefits of cannabis-based medicines. The results are expected in 2002. If they prove to be successful, the Government will support the licensing of new products, and that should lead to their being made available on prescription from mid-2003 onwards.

Mr. Andrew Lansley: Will the Minister please convey my warm wishes to the Minister for the Cabinet Office? We really do miss her when she is not here.
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is important to distinguish between the potentially proven medicinal uses of cannabis and its other uses? Legalising cannabis is not an answer—that would not deal with its misuse. In the Netherlands in the decade up to 1997, the incidence of cannabis use rose by over half and the use of hard drugs nearly doubled. Does he agree that a necessary objective is to achieve a higher awareness of the damaging effects of cannabis? It is addictive and carcinogenic, and it carries a considerable risk of mental health problems.

Mr. McCartney: I will pass on the hon. Gentleman's good wishes to my right hon. Friend. I am sorry that it is the monkey rather than the organ grinder who is here today.
I cannot disagree with a word that the hon. Gentleman said—and I do not say that with disappointment. As I have previously said from this Dispatch Box, I want a proactive, all-party approach to the issues of illicit and illegal drugs. Cannabis should not be confused with medicinal products. One cannot use the problems of MS


sufferers as a blanket excuse for allowing drug traffickers to peddle hard drugs to our kids. A high proportion of young people who use cannabis go on to use even more problematic drugs in later life. We should recognise that there is a slippery slope, and we should not decriminalise cannabis.

Mr. Lansley: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. Research from New Zealand, which was recently referred to by the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), shows that the likelihood of going on to use other drugs is 60 times greater among regular cannabis users than among those who do not use cannabis. Will he therefore correct from the Dispatch Box the statement made by the Minister for the Cabinet Office, who said:
the scientific evidence is not yet available to suggest that smoking cannabis leads to
the use of hard drugs? Does he accept that we must deter people from cannabis use, and that that drug has a gateway effect, leading on to hard drug use?

Mr. McCartney: I thought for a moment that the hon. Gentleman had changed his ways and was trying cleverly to tease out a disagreement between myself and my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office. There is no disagreement within the Government about the matter; I could not have made it plainer where we stand. It was rather churlish of the hon. Gentleman to suggest that there was a difference of opinion. There is no such difference.

Mr. Paul Flynn: Why is it that after 30 years of Britain having the harshest anti-cannabis penalties in Europe, cannabis use in this country is the highest in Europe, whereas after 25 years of regulated decriminalisation, cannabis use in the Netherlands is lower than here? The Netherlands has separated the two markets, so it has only a tenth of the number of heroin deaths per million people that we have. Is it sensible that in the same country and in the same week, a chief constable said that he would arrest anyone for recreational use of cannabis, while a desperately ill young woman was dragged through the courts for using cannabis medicinally? [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Before the Minister replies, I ask the House come to order. Far too many conversations are taking place in the Chamber.

Mr. McCartney: My hon. Friend has conducted a long campaign on this matter, but he is mixing up two important issues. I shall not repeat my remarks about medicinal use, which we will support if research proves that available products can be secured for 2003 onwards. I cannot, however, accept the naive proposition that drug traffickers and sellers somehow separate the sale of cannabis from that of other drugs. In Holland and other places, the availability to 12 to 15-year-olds of cannabis and other drugs has hugely increased. We should not take that road, as it is the road of despair. We must stick to our 10-year strategy and protect our young people from the effects of drugs. I know of no family in Britain that would sit back and say that their child should be dosed

up on drugs. I do not believe that that would happen, or that any right-thinking family member would want to see any child of any age take cannabis.

Dr. Jenny Tonge: Is the Minister aware that his quotations from the World Health Organisation were a selective collection of evidence about cannabis? There is much evidence to suggest that the opposite of what he said is correct. Will he establish a working party, a royal commission or another public body to examine all the research on cannabis and to consider the matter sensibly and logically before we proceed any further?

Mr. McCartney: I can never for the life of me understand the Liberals on this issue. First, a royal commission is not needed to tell people that drugs are harmful, that they damage and kill children or that they destroy families and communities. Secondly, the World Health Organisation's evidence is medically based. It is nonsense for the Liberals to suggest that cannabis does not have the effects that I describe. That argument is irresponsible in the extreme.

Disability Rights (Civil Service)

Mr. Gordon Marsden: What meetings she plans to have with the Disability Rights Commission to discuss the implications of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 for the civil service. [139179]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Graham Stringer): There are no meetings scheduled at present. The civil service's equal opportunities policy takes account of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and the Government are keen to ensure that disabled people can play their full part as employees of Departments. A new civil service-wide network for disabled people is being launched today by Sir Richard Wilson, head of the home civil service. The Disability Rights Commission will attend that launch.

Mr. Marsden: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. I am encouraged by his remarks about the activities and initiatives. Does he agree that access to employment and employment buildings is a key issue for disabled people? As more than 10,000 civil service employees are concentrated in Blackpool and the Fylde, but are fragmented across a number of agencies, will my hon. Friend use his best offices to ensure that they co-operate and work effectively on the matter, and do not become bogged down in turf wars?

Mr. Stringer: In answering the question, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his work in this connection. He has done a great deal of work in his constituency to help disabled people.
It is obvious that fair access to employment cannot exist if disabled people cannot enter the employment buildings. The Government and the Cabinet Office have a check-off system to ensure that Government buildings are adapted


to provide access for disabled people. No. 10 Downing Street and the Cabinet Office have both been made accessible to them.

Mr. Speaker: Before Prime Minister's Question Time, let me remind the House to pay attention to what I said last week about behaviour during Prime Minister's questions.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Ann Clwyd: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 29 November.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Ann Clwyd: Will my right hon. Friend consider the case of Ernie Obern, an 85-year-old ex-miner in my constituency? He has 90 per cent. dust in his lungs, he is on oxygen permanently, and he is bedridden. He is very ill at this moment. He has just received a letter from his solicitor telling him that it will be not months but years before he receives his full compensation.
May I ask my right hon. Friend to ensure that the elderly, the sick and widows are a top priority? May I also ask him personally to take the question of compensation by the scruff of the neck, and deliver justice to the miners?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to speak of her frustration on behalf of her constituent. Indeed, I have many constituents in the same position.
We are now processing claims at a rate of hundreds per week. Last week alone, £1 million was paid in compensation every day. The money is being ring-fenced, and the money is there. The difficulty is that, as a result of litigation, we must ensure in respect of each case that it has been certified as proper to pay the money. I assure my hon. Friend, however, that I share her frustration. We are doing all that we can to speed up the payments: this is, I am afraid, a legacy that we inherited, and we are determined to put it right.

Mr. William Hague: It is widely accepted that up to 15,000 care home beds were closed in the year to April. What is the Prime Minister's assessment of the number of beds that will be lost in the current year?

The Prime Minister: It is correct that 15,000 were lost; however, the net figure is 5,000, because many more were put on. It is also the case that some 20,000 were added as a result of packages for home care. As a matter

of fact, as a result of the additional money put in by the health service plan, we do indeed aim to expand the beds to which the right hon. Gentleman referred as well.

Mr. Hague: Is not the truth that that will be a sticking plaster on the gaping wound that the Government have created? The Prime Minister's statistics suggest that he is not aware of what is happening around the country. This week, Cornwall reports that 400 beds have been lost since April this year; Kent reports 500, Surrey 500 and Hampshire 400. In some cases, the figures constitute 10 per cent. of total capacity in the counties involved.
Is the Prime Minister aware that that lies behind the increased number of blocked beds and the tens of thousands of cancelled operations that we have seen so far this year? Does he accept that the care homes sector blames those problems on a Government who have failed to listen to its concerns?

The Prime Minister: Let me remind the right hon. Gentleman that when he was in office 60,000 beds were cut in the national health service. Indeed—I speak from memory—when he was Secretary of State for Wales, 1,200 beds were cut under his stewardship. But, as ever, the right hon. Gentleman did not listen to my original reply. I accepted that there was a 5,000 net loss in respect of the beds to which he referred; however, because of the extra home care and health packages, 20,000 have been put on elsewhere. As for the areas that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, yes, it is correct that in certain parts of the country there is real pressure on residential care. As a result of the national health service plan, however—the plan that the right hon. Gentleman opposed—we are getting the extra investment in the health service to deal with that.

Mr. Hague: We are clearly not getting the extra investment. If the Prime Minister wants to talk about what happened in Wales, when I was Secretary of State for Wales—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Well, the Prime Minister was speaking from memory. I am speaking from the facts, which are more reliable than his memory. When I was Secretary of State for Wales, the total waiting list fell by 6,000. Since he has been Prime Minister, it has risen by 72,000 in Wales. Those are the facts, but is not the truth about care homes that the Government have failed to listen to the representations of the care homes themselves? From Norwich, they say:
I am concerned that my home will close
if the regulations are brought in. From Coventry, they say that the regulations mean that they have to turn their "business into an hotel." From Kent, they say:
We wish to draw to your attention the potential catastrophe
if the Government's proposals are implemented. Is it not a sign of an arrogant failure to listen that leads to a miserable failure to deliver?

The Prime Minister: Just to correct the right hon. Gentleman, when he was Secretary of State for Wales, in-patient waiting lists rose; he cut the number of nurses, he cut the number of doctors and he cut the number of beds. However, in respect of the regulations regarding these homes, as that is where his bandwagon is now parked, the regulations are introduced for a specific purpose. For years,


the House debated the problems of abuse in those homes. The regulations are introduced to correct that. They are surely right.
Of course, we will listen to representations made, but the regulations have not even come into effect yet—they do not come into effect until 2002—so they are not the reason for the recent difficulties. The reason has been under-investment in the health service over a long period of time. The difference between me and the right hon. Gentleman is that our proposals are to increase investment and, as a result of the commitment by his shadow Chancellor, his proposals are to cut it.

Mr. Speaker: I call Harriet Harman.

Hon. Members: More, more.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have called Harriet Harman.

Ms Harriet Harman: Is the Prime Minister aware that the family and the whole of Peckham are devastated by the appalling murder of Damilola Taylor? Will the Prime Minister tell the people of Peckham that he shares their grief, anger and steely determination that the hard work that they have put in over the past few years to improve their neighbourhood must not be abandoned, but must continue?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend has spoken, rightly, on behalf of her constituents. There is shock and outrage not just in the House and in her constituency, but right across the country at the appalling and brutal murder of Damilola. As his brother said yesterday, we must do everything we possibly can to bring the killers to justice. There are other issues raised, which my right hon. Friend mentioned, but I think that today is the right day to express our outrage and our profound sympathy for the family.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: Can I associate myself entirely with the sentiments that have been so properly and well expressed?
In terms of our national transportation policy, if that is not a contradiction in terms, we have chaos on the railways, gridlock on the roads and parliamentary revolts over air traffic control. If the Prime Minister wins a second term, will the Deputy Prime Minister still be in charge of all those things?

The Prime Minister: Thanks to the Deputy Prime Minister and the 10-year transport plan, we will put more money into our public transport system than has been put into our country's infrastructure since the 19th century. May I remind the right hon. Gentleman, too, that that plan—£180 billion worth—is more than he ever promised at the last election? As ever, no matter what he promised, when we exceed it, he tells us that it is not enough.

Mr. Kennedy: I am sure that the whole country will be greatly encouraged by the fact that the Deputy Prime Minister may still be in charge of all those things if there is a second term, but is not the point to be made that the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions is too monolithic and too big for any one politician to be in control of it, particularly someone as

big as the Deputy Prime Minister? Should we not have a specific Transport Secretary at Cabinet level to get transport in this country back on track?

The Prime Minister: I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman. However, in respect of the railways, yes, of course there is a serious situation at the moment. We know what has caused it, following the Hatfield crash. As I emphasised at my meeting yesterday with the executives of Railtrack, those who represent passengers, the train operating companies and the Strategic Rail Authority, it is important that we inject some common sense back into the system. Today's meeting of the Railtrack board is important for that very reason. If it is the case—as it is—that people have to go on to the roads because there is not proper rail provision, that would be a risk. We have expressly asked people to take that into account.
Let us, however, be in no doubt that, over a long period, the problem with the British transport system has been under-investment. If we do not face up to the need to put in that investment and sustain it year on year on year, we will always complain about the problem, but never solve it.

Mr. Phil Woolas: Following the question from the leader of the Liberal Democrats, does the Prime Minister agree that—in the light of the announcement two weeks ago of a 100 per cent. increase in the highways maintenance budget and the forthcoming announcements on local transport plans to make real the —180-billion plan—soon, in my constituency of Oldham, East and Saddleworth, the potholes will be filled and the Liberal Democrats will have nothing to do?

The Prime Minister: It is of course the case that the investment is not only in the railways but in the road infrastructure, too. However, it is important to put that investment in context. We said that we had to take measures to stabilise the economy and reduce national debt; we have done that. We said that education would be our first priority; we have put the extra resources in education. The national health service plan followed, and then the transport plan. That money is going in and it will yield results, but that takes time. However, I totally understand the frustration particularly of people travelling on the railways. I can tell my hon. Friend that that investment is being made in his constituency, that it is being replicated in constituencies right across the country, and that it will make a difference.

Mr. Simon Burns: Will the Prime Minister please tell me why, three and a half years after he came to power, hospital waiting lists in mid-Essex are 1,100 higher and rising?

The Prime Minister: I do not know about the particular position in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, although I will look into it—[Interruption.] I will look into it because I often find that the figures given to me by Conservative Members do not always entirely accord with the truth. However, whatever the situation may be in Essex, in respect of waiting lists nationally we have met our waiting list pledge on in-patient lists. It is correct that out-patient lists—which increased for years under the


previous Conservative Government whom he supported—increased in the first two years, but they are now down from their peak and continue to fall.

Mr. Eric Martlew: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a large body of public opinion that maintains that the privatisation of Railtrack should be reversed? Who does he think is to blame for the fact that Railtrack is having a nervous breakdown? Was it caused by 20 years of neglect and gross under-investment by the previous Conservative Government? Is it a result of the fact that, on privatisation, thousands of professional railway personnel were sacked to increase profitability? Or is it a result of the fact that Railtrack ignored safety to increase profits? Will he also tell us what we will do to put right the railway network?

The Prime Minister: We inherited two problems. The first was fragmentation of the railways under the previous Conservative Government's privatisation proposals, and the second was chronic under-investment. Both those problems have to be tackled. The first is best tackled through the Strategic Rail Authority, which is now in place and working, and the second by our investment proposals.
Again, we have the clearest possible choice between the two political parties. Labour Members are committed to our transport investment proposals, whereas Conservative Members— thanks to the shadow Chancellor, if indeed he is still the shadow Chancellor—have made it absolutely clear that they would could cut the investment that we want to make in the transport system. There could not be anything worse for the future of the railways than that.

Mrs. Marion Roe: Will the Prime Minister retract the comments which he made last month to the Royal College of Surgeons blaming general practitioners for abusing the admissions procedure? Is he aware that the chairman of the Royal College of General Practitioners has said that the Prime Minister's remarks, coming at a time of low morale and change, have served only to heighten the feeling that primary care is insufficiently valued by him and the Government?

The Prime Minister: First, I did not blame doctors. I said that it was important, as we are doing, to get some sort of system in place that allows these decisions to be taken on a rational basis. The British Medical Association is fully in favour of such protocols.
Secondly, I met many representatives of the health service this morning. They accept that there is still a long way to go, but they support the national health service plan and the extra investment going into the NHS. I can assure the hon. Lady that the one group of people that the country does not trust with the NHS is the party that she represents.

Mr. Paul Goggins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that on Saturday supporters of Jubilee 2000 will gather for a final rally to celebrate their coalition's considerable achievements, and to make clear their determination to press for debt cancellation? Will he take this opportunity to send a strong message of support to these campaigners? Will he ensure that his Government continue to place the highest

priority on international development and the search for deeper and wider debt relief for the poorest countries of the world?

The Prime Minister: As a result of the work done by my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for International Development, there are about 20 of the poorest countries in the world that by the end of the year will have had their debt cancellation put in place. That will make a difference of billions of dollars to those countries. It will allow them to spend that money on rebuilding their economies rather than paying interest on debt. It is part of a programme that the Government have been spearheading over the past three and a half years, not only nationally but internationally. One of the Government's proudest achievements is the rise in the proportion of national income that is going on overseas aid and development, and the difference that that is making to some of the poorest countries and to people who find themselves in the most difficult situations throughout the world.

Mr. William Hague: Two weeks ago, the Prime Minister told the House at Prime Minister's Question Time that he was consulting over the abolition of community health councils. Will he now admit that all the time he was saying that he supported the work of the councils and that he wanted to consult on their future, that was totally untrue and he is now abolishing them?

The Prime Minister: We are indeed consulting upon them. We put forward proposals in the national health service action plan, and we shall continue consulting on them. I am aware of the strong feelings on both sides of the House, and we shall listen to those.

Mr. Hague: Every time the right hon. Gentleman is asked about the matter, he says that he is consulting. However, when he told my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) that two weeks ago, he had to write to him afterwards to say:

I thought it would be helpful if I clarified the nature
of my answer. That means that the civil servants told him that he had not told the truth. He added:
Our proposals mean that Community Health Councils are to be abolished.
That means that everything he said was rubbish.
The letter continues:
This better describes the consultation I alluded to.
The right hon. Gentleman hoped that my hon. Friend was reassured. Is it not absolutely clear that the consultation is about things that the right hon. Gentleman wants to put in place of community health councils and that there is to be no consultation, there has been no consultation and there will be no consultation about the abolition of community health councils, which the Government now intend to proceed with?

The Prime Minister: No. They are described as proposals because that is what they are. Yes, of course, that is what the Government consider to be the best way forward. We now, however, as will be familiar to people, consult on the proposals, and we shall listen to the representations that are made. There was a debate about


this in the House yesterday. Of course the matter will be debated, and we shall listen to the representations made. That is the purpose of the NHS plan.
Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will now explain whether, contrary to what he said back in July, he now supports the NHS plan and the extra investment going into the health service.

Mr. Hague: We support the Prime Minister trying to give an answer to some questions. He should read his letter, which states
that Community Health Councils are to be abolished … and replaced with an entirely new system.
That is the Government's policy.
Is it not the case that the community health councils tell the truth about his broken promises, and that that is why he wants them to go? The casualty watch report from community health councils says it all in the past couple of months. It refers to the
the 69 year old lady who waited on a trolley in East Surrey Hospital for … 30 hours; the woman waited 35 hours in a chair before being seen.
This is three and a half years after the right hon. Gentleman has been in charge of the health service. The British people have had to wait more than three years to get a straight answer from him. Is he not abolishing community health councils because he wants to gag all those who expose the fact that he is all mouth and no delivery?

The Prime Minister: Let me give the right hon. Gentleman some of the facts about the national health service and the money that is going into it. [Interruption.] Opposition Members do not like to hear this, because it is true. There are 10,000 extra nurses since we took office. Every accident and emergency department—including the one in the right hon. Gentleman's constituency—has been modernised as a result of our investment. Extra money is going into primary care, medical training places and every part of the national health service.
I suggest that the Leader of the Opposition listen to the words of Norman Lamont from just two days ago. When asked about the Conservative party, he said:
The economy is not a very good issue for them because the … economy has gone pretty well. I don't believe the health service is a brilliant issue for the Conservative Party, the public will never perceive the health service as being the strong electoral card of the Conservative Party.
That is absolutely right. Why is it right? It is because we are committed to increasing investment in our public services, and the right hon. Gentleman is committed to cutting it. It is investment that our schools, hospitals, transport and police need, not the cuts that he will be standing on at the next election.

Mr. Tom Levitt: In the past three and a half years, the Government have done much to build on the relatively weak foundations of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. I commend my right hon. Friend on his personal commitment in that respect, but is he aware that there remains a gaping hole in the disability legislation? The disability rights taskforce has identified problems with the rights of disabled children in education and of children with special educational needs. Will my

right hon. Friend give a commitment that he will address those problems as soon as possible in the next legislative programme?

The Prime Minister: Yes; I am delighted to say that we will introduce the Special Educational Needs Bill in the next Session to improve the standard of education for all children with special educational needs. That will build on the introduction of the Disability Rights Commission, and it shows our intention to ensure that all children, whatever their background, get the chance to fulfil their potential in life.

Mr. David Trimble: I am sure that the Prime Minister will agree that questions to do with holding ministerial office or sitting in a legislative assembly are constitutional issues. Given that the Belfast agreement dealt comprehensively with the constitutional issues relating to the British isles as a whole, why are the Government pursuing legislation that would enable a person to be a Minister in one country and also sit in another country's Parliament or assembly where there is a clear conflict of interest?
The question of such proposals was never raised during the Belfast agreement negotiations. The other parties to those negotiations were never consulted before the legislation was introduced. The legislation is designed to benefit one party in particular. Will the Prime Minister take advantage of the opportunity that the other place has given him to reconsider this constitutional monstrosity?

The Prime Minister: I am afraid that I do not accept that the legislation is a constitutional monstrosity. It gives people in Northern Ireland the same rights as those enjoyed by people in Commonwealth countries. I do not think that that is the wrong thing to do. I think that it is the right thing to do. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman and I disagree on this matter, but we do.

Miss Anne Begg: I am sure that my right hon. Friend was very pleased with the results of the three by-elections last week, and especially with the double victory in Glasgow, Anniesland. That was a great tribute to the memory of Donald Dewar, my predecessor in Aberdeen, South.
My right hon. Friend may not be aware that the leader of the Scottish National party had said that Labour might be in a for a shock in Anniesland. He was right: we were shocked at just how badly the SNP did. Does my right hon. Friend agree with the electorate of Anniesland that the place for Scotland is to be part of the United Kingdom?

The Prime Minister: It is increasingly clear that devolution has strengthened the United Kingdom. The performance—or lack of performance—of the Scottish National party is an indication of that. I think that many people in my hon. Friend's constituency and in Scotland recognise that in introducing a stable economy—which has given people lower mortgages—and in getting 1 million extra jobs in the economy, as well as measures such as the working families tax credit, the new deal and


providing extra money for pensioners, we are delivering on our promises to the people of Scotland and, indeed, the people of the United Kingdom.

Mr. James Gray: On Monday this week, six children from Colerne primary school in my constituency delivered a petition to the Prime Minister, signed by every head teacher of every school in Wiltshire, calling for fair funding for Wiltshire. Is the Prime Minister aware that his Government spend £1,000 less per pupil in Wiltshire than, for example, here in London? What is his response to their petition?

The Prime Minister: The allocations between various districts are, of course, a long-standing grievance. We have been looking at this, as did the previous Government. However, I hope that the hon. Gentleman had the honesty to tell the children and those who gathered the petition that his party's proposals are to cut the extra education investment. [Interruption.] Conservative Members can shout and bawl as much as they like, but the fact is that we put forward plans for increased investment in schools. That money is going into schools, and the commitment by the shadow Chancellor is not to match that investment. It is no good Conservative Members shaking their heads—they should now understand that that is their policy, and they will have to defend it at the next election.

Mr. Hilary Benn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that more than 6,000 people in this country are waiting for a kidney transplant because there is a desperate shortage of organs for donation? Does he therefore welcome the announcement by the Goldfish credit card company that it will issue its customers who want to be organ donors with a credit card bearing the organ donor symbol so that it can be carried with them at all times? Will he give his personal encouragement to other banks and building societies to follow this example so that we can increase the number of organ donors?

The Prime Minister: Yes, it is an excellent initiative. There is a real shortage of donors, and attaching the symbol to credit cards is an excellent way of increasing the numbers available. I fully support the initiative being taken by the company to which my hon. Friend refers, and I hope that it is taken up by others.

Sir Michael Spicer: Why have productivity rates fallen so sharply since the right hon. Gentleman took office?

The Prime Minister: I am sorry to have to tell the hon. Gentleman, but productivity is rising. From memory, the latest figures show that productivity has risen by something like 3.4 per cent. in the past year. What is more, it is rising by more than 4 per cent. in manufacturing. So I am sorry to tell the hon. Gentleman, but the premise of his question is wrong.

Mr. David Kidney: Does my right hon. Friend recollect that a new NHS Direct call

centre has just started work at Stafford hospital, creating 100 new jobs in Stafford and serving more than 3 million residents of the west midlands? Is it not by modernisations such as NHS Direct that Labour is saving the national health service?

The Prime Minister: It is all part of the investment into the national health service plan. My hon. Friend may be interested to know that the representatives of the health service whom I spoke to today, thought in particular that where NHS Direct worked with out-of-hours services by local general practitioners and with the local accident and emergency department, there was a significant reduction in the pressure on the accident and emergency department. That shows once more the need not just for investment but for a change in the way in which the health service works.

Mrs. Ray Michie: I make no apology for returning to the question of the Chinook helicopter that crashed on the Mull of Kintyre in my constituency. Is the Prime Minister really aware of how deeply troubled so many people are that the two dead pilots should have been condemned by an unjust verdict of gross negligence, when in fact, the cause of the crash could not be determined? Will the Prime Minister please give the matter his personal attention, as he promised to do before, so that this tragedy can finally be laid to rest?

The Prime Minister: I am certainly aware of the strength of feeling on this issue. The last time the hon. Lady raised it with me I got back in touch with her and told her what I believed was the up-to-date position. I cannot, off the top of my head, offer any more details or information now, but again, I will go back and look at it and let her know the up-to-date position.
The issue has obviously been looked at and pored over for a very long time. I am aware of the strength of feeling because I receive direct representations about it, quite apart from what the hon. Lady says. I will be in touch with her again, but I cannot add anything today to what I said to her before.

Dr. Phyllis Starkey: In the light of the recent report by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mary Robinson, on human rights abuses in the occupied territories in Israel, will the Prime Minister add his efforts to those of the Foreign Secretary in seeking assurances from the Israeli Government that they will not use arms or equipment bought from this country against civilians in the occupied territories?

The Prime Minister: I certainly can assure my hon. Friend that we are engaged in doing what we can to help in this situation. Throughout, we have emphasised that two things must be put in place: first, the restoration of security—that applies not simply in respect of the Israeli forces, but also in respect of people from the Palestinian authority; and secondly, to ensure that, once some calm has been restored, a proper peace process is put back on track again. That is the only way to resolve the matter.
I know that there are strong feelings on all sides. I have taken the view throughout that our best way to influence the situation is by patient and quiet diplomacy. As my hon. Friend rightly says, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has both visited the region and been in touch

with the Foreign Ministers of many other countries. We are doing everything we can to try to put the situation right. I hope that we can do so, because the consequences of failure are grim—not just for Israel, the Palestinians and the middle east but for the world.

Personal Statement

Mr. Tony Benn: As tomorrow is the 50th anniversary of my first election to the House of Commons, may I take this opportunity of expressing my sincere thanks to many Members past and present, from both sides of the House, for the many kindnesses shown to me and my family, especially during the past few days following the death of my wife, Caroline?
Those of us who work here will know of the strong bond of friendship and warmth between Members and the staff who work with us in the building. I am proud to have been a member of that wider parliamentary family—first as the representative of Bristol, South-East and now of Chesterfield—from whom I have learned and gained a very great deal during my half century in this place.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr. Speaker: I am sure that the House would want me to offer our congratulations to the right hon. Gentleman on his long service to the House, and to express to him and to his family our sympathy in their recent loss of Caroline.

Inherited SERPS

The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement on inherited SERPS.
In my statement to the House of 15 March this year, I explained how millions of people were given wrong, misleading or incomplete information about rule changes introduced by the previous Government in 1986, which were due to come into effect earlier this year. As I told the House then, as a matter of principle, when someone loses out because they were given the wrong information by a Department, they are entitled to expect the Government to put it right.
In March, I announced that we would defer any changes in the inheritance rules by two and a half years, until 6 October 2002. That remains the position. I also said that I would consult the ombudsman, the National Audit Office and others about a protected rights scheme, designed to provide redress to people who were given wrong or incomplete information.
I received a range of helpful and constructive representations from Members of the House, Select Committees and others. I also received the advice of the Social Security Advisory Committee, whose report I am publishing today—copies will be available in the Library and the Vote Office. As I have said before, the solution to this problem has to be both fair and workable. And as the ombudsman has said, it must provide a global remedy. I am determined to make sure that we do that.
Over the past few months, I have become increasingly convinced that a protected rights scheme would not work in the way intended and, therefore, would not provide a fair and just solution to this problem. It would not be fair because we could not be sure that it would reach all those affected, particularly the very elderly and vulnerable, and it would be very difficult to safeguard the scheme against fraud and abuse. Its operation would inevitably cause injustice, and on that basis, I do not intend to pursue it.
There were two key problems with the decisions taken 14 years ago by the last Conservative Government. First, they decided to implement the changes without any transitional arrangements. And worse, they continued for years to give out wrong, misleading and incomplete information about what they planned to do. We have already deferred the change in the inheritance rules until 6 October 2002, so no one at all will be affected by the policy change before that date.
The proposals I am making today are designed to give full protection to every pensioner; to give younger people adequate notice of the change to SERPS rules; and to provide transitional arrangements for those approaching retirement age. First, men and women who are already over the state pension age cannot do anything to restore their position. I have therefore decided that all men and women who are over state pension age on 5 October 2002 will be exempt from the changes. That means that every pensioner will keep his or her existing entitlement.
Secondly, proper notice has to be given to those who are planning for their retirement. So I am proposing that the new rules will apply only to men and women who are now 10 years or more away from their state pension age. Thirdly, those people who are approaching state pension
age will have less time to plan for their retirement. So we will phase in the changes for those who are within 10 years of their state pension age. For example, people who reach state pension age between October 2002 and 2004 will be able to pass on 90 per cent. of their SERPS, and those who reach pension age between 2004 and 2006 will pass on up to 80 per cent. and so on.
We intend to bring forward regulations in the new year to implement those changes. We will consult on the draft regulations in the usual way. We will also write to all those people who have contacted us already, to set out the position. There are, of course, a very small number of people who have evidence that they were clearly misinformed by the Department—for example, they have a letter from the Benefits Agency containing the wrong information. That small group will have access to the usual departmental procedures that deal with cases of maladministration, to the extent that the proposals that I am announcing today will not fully compensate them already.
I have already taken steps to prevent this problem from happening again. As I told the House in March, I am reorganising the Department of Social Security so that it can better serve its key customer groups. I am bringing together policy and operational responsibility into a single organisation dedicated to pensioners. As part of that process, we have already tightened up the procedures for checking leaflets and guidance.
I want to ensure that, in future, people are told about changes in pension policy, so that they can plan for their retirement in full knowledge of their position. That is why, next year, we will begin to send out combined pension statements, giving people more comprehensive information on their entitlements.
The proposals that I am making today will clear up the mess that we inherited. Everybody who has reached state pension age in October 2002 will be unaffected by the new rules. My announcement today will remove any worry for pensioners about providing for their spouse. We are giving those men and women who are more than 10 years away from state pension age the proper notice to which they are entitled. We will phase in the changes for those within 10 years of their state pension age.
Owing to the timing of the changes, the costs will be comparable to the protected rights scheme over the next 3 years. The reforms that I have announced today will cost an extra £1.5 billion over 10 years and an extra £4 billion over 50 years.
This problem should have been sorted out 14 years ago. What happened in the years after 1986 was a series of colossal blunders. That was inexcusable and caused untold distress to millions of people. The then Conservative Government have to take full responsibility for what has happened. We are now taking the responsibility for sorting it out. I commend this statement to the House.

Mr. David Willetts: Let me begin by making it absolutely clear that we accept that it took far too long to give people the advice that they needed on changes to SERPS for widows. We accept the criticism of maladministration in the reports by the National Audit Office, the Government ombudsman, the Public Accounts Committee and, most recently, by the Public

Administration Committee. Yes, we very much regret the maladministration that occurred. However, we must now question the Secretary of State on the extraordinary about-turn that he has announced. Nine months ago, he announced to the House a scheme that we warned at the time was unworkable. His about-turn is confirmation that his complicated scheme was indeed unworkable. Today's statement is not a triumph for the Secretary—[interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister was heard in silence. The hon. Gentleman should not be shouted at.

Mr. Willetts: The statement today is a triumph and I pay tribute in particular to the Public Administration Committee and its Chairman, the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright), because it was his report above all that made it clear that the Government's previous proposals were unworkable.
Along with his statement, the right hon. Gentleman has produced a report from the Social Security Advisory Committee on how the compensation scheme should work for what he calls a small number of cases in which there is clear evidence of maladministration. Of course, those are the cases that were to be the central feature of the scheme announced in March. Will the right hon. Gentleman stand by the assurances that we have had from Ministers about the way in which compensation will operate in such cases? His colleague, the Minister in another place, said:
if someone asserted that he had received that misleading advice, I suspect it may well be the case that the Government would have to prove that he had not, rather than the contrary, because there would be no evidence to counterbalance it.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 July 1999; Vol. 603, c. 847.]
Does that assurance apply to the scheme that the SSAC has announced today?
On the costs of the proposal, the right hon. Gentleman referred to £1.5 billion. I want to be absolutely clear what he is talking about. We were told that the previous compensation scheme would cost£8.2 billion. Presumably his extra costs are on top of that, so are we talking of a scheme that will cost £12.2 billion? We would be grateful for his confirmation of that figure.
Finally, on the crucial point about the maladministration that occurred, we accept that it occurred and very much regret what happened. Much of it happened under our watch—but I would draw the attention of the Secretary of State to the devastating report of the Public Administration Committee, which referred not to maladministration but to something far more serious. It referred to "conscious ministerial decision". Paragraph 17 of the report refers to the then permanent secretary at the Department, Rachel Lomax, who referred to decisions by Ministers in 1999 in the following terms:
Rachel Lomax told us that the failure fully to inform the public at this stage—
in other words, after the problem had been apparent for more than a year—
was a conscious ministerial decision, because possible options were being considered for the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill, but with hindsight this was a mistake.
Does the Secretary of State agree with the judgment of his permanent secretary that that was indeed a mistake?

Mr. Darling: I acknowledge that the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) has pleaded guilty on behalf of the


Conservative party to gross negligence for a long period after the rules were passed. He then went on to ask how much the scheme would cost. I will explain. The total cost, over a 50-year period, is about £12 billion. That is the price that the country has to pay for the mess that the Tories left us. The figures that I gave him were that the extra, over and above the inherited SERPS scheme, for the scheme that I have announced today will be £1.5 billion over 10 years and £4 billion over the 50 years. The total cost is therefore£8 billion over a 10-year period and £12 billion over the 50-year period. That is how much we have to pay to put things right.
I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. I thought that I had sent him a copy of my statement, but his response suggests that he did not receive it. He seems to be under the impression that we are discussing a proposal made by the advisory committee. That is not the case. We suggest that, to put matters right, we must ensure that all existing pensioners— all the people over the state pension age as of 2002—should exempted from the scheme, because they can do nothing about their arrangements.
We are also doing what the previous Government should have done. We are introducing transitional arrangements for people nearing retirement and making sure that the scheme affects only people who have long enough to start to make the appropriate arrangements. We are doing now what the Conservative Government should have done 14 years ago, and which they did not do. That is an indictment of the previous Government. This issue and the mis-selling of pensions show that they had scant regard for pensioners. They spent little time listening to what pensioners wanted.

Mr. Frank Field: I very much welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. People will not be slow to contrast the clearness of his statement with the misinformation that was given by the Opposition.
May I concentrate my remarks on the people who are 10 years from retirement? Does my right hon. Friend recall that, in the House not two weeks ago, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Social Security, who is responsible for pensions, said that all people had to do was tell the Department that they had not been informed of the change and that taxpayers would meet the Bill? Is it not true that, despite the generosity and creativeness of today's statement, some people who are 10 years from retirement are in a worse position today than they were a couple of weeks ago? What would it have cost to pay the SERPS entitlement fully to those 10 years from retirement? In effect, that would have created a clean slate, because everyone would have known that they would have to cover the period from 10 years hence, but no one within 10 years of retirement would have suffered.

Mr. Darling: My right hon. Friend has raised a point that enables me to return to one that I perhaps did not cover fully enough when I replied to the hon. Member for Havant. I refer to the scheme that the Department has run for many years in respect of maladministration. My announcement today means that most people who have been in touch with the Department will be exempted. The House may be interested to know that, of the 20,000-odd people who got in touch with the Department after my announcement in March, 70 per cent. were over the age

of 65. Their position is now taken care of. In fact, only 3 per cent. were under the age of 50, and they are clearly more than 10 years away from retirement.
My right hon. Friend is interested in the transitional arrangements, and we are making sure that the policy is introduced gradually for people with 10 years or less to retirement. Those who are very close to retirement will receive 90 per cent. of their entitlement and those further away from retirement will receive a lesser entitlement that goes down to 50 per cent. That is a lot better than the original proposal for inherited SERPS. Under that, although it was for the Department to disprove claims, it was clear to me that there was a potential for maladministration and injustice. It was very difficult to prove exactly what had happened and who had said what to anybody else. However, we maintain the scheme to which the hon. Member for Havant referred. When someone has manifestly been misled—for example, a person may have a letter from the Benefits Agency that tells him he would have an entitlement when he does not—he will be entitled to redress in the normal way.
I say to my right hon. Friend that the scheme that we now propose is much fairer. First, all pensioners are exempted and, secondly, we get away from the obvious difficulties that one faces when someone could have come to the Department saying that he remembers seeing a leaflet in the dentist. Even though he does not exactly remember where or when, he may still have asked for compensation. That would not have been a proper way of dealing with the problem. The scheme that we are introducing today is fairer, it is just and, above all, it is workable.

Mr. Steve Webb: When I issued a statement to the press this morning stating that
The only decent thing to do would be for the Government to cancel the cut to widows pensions for those who've already reached pension age,
little did I expect that, within three hours, the Secretary of State would be in the House doing so. That represents an extremely welcome precedent, and I hope that it will happen again.
We unreservedly and enthusiastically welcome the Secretary of State's announcement. We are prepared to ignore the fact that in April, when we tabled an amendment to the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill proposing an almost identical scheme, we were told that the cost would be enormous and that the proposal was not practical. The Secretary of State should have announced such a scheme a while ago, but we unreservedly welcome the fact that he announced it today.
I shall ask one question of detail. The Secretary of State has set up a tapering system for those close to pension age. On what basis has that phasing been calculated? Has it been calculated on the basis that people a couple of years from pension age could save a certain amount to top up their pension, so the percentage that they can pass on has been reduced accordingly? Does such a calculation underlie the tapering system?
That is a point of detail. I stress that the statement is enormously welcome and we welcome it unreservedly.

Mr. Darling: I must not be churlish, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his welcome for our proposals. His press release has escaped me so far, so I can honestly
say that no matter what he thinks, it did not have too much influence on what I had already decided. Nevertheless, I am grateful to him.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the sliding scale. There are two points to be made. First, I am writing today to all Members of the House setting out the scheme in a little more detail, including the sliding scale. It does not have an actuarial basis. It is a genuine attempt to ensure that as people approach retirement, they have enough time to make provision, so that we avoid one of the problems of the Conservative scheme, if I can call it that—the cliff edge effect: someone who died on 31 March was all right, but someone who died the next day was not. [Laughter.] I am sure that the House gets the drift. It depends, I suppose, on what view one takes of the afterlife. Perhaps I should more correctly say that I was referring to the position of the widow.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) for his remarks, and also for the fact that he has abandoned a position that I understood the Liberals to support—a straight 10-year deferral, which of course does not fit the bill. [Interruption.] That was their position.

Tony Wright: Even if my right hon. Friend missed the Liberal Democrat press release this morning, I am glad that he did not miss the report issued by the Select Committee on Public Administration a few days ago. This is an extraordinary story. It is a complete political failure and administrative shambles, and to put it right the Government must now put more money into the pot. It is a dreadful failure on the part of the previous Government.
What my right hon. Friend announced today is an act of justice. All SERPS pensioners will be grateful for it. I thank him for it. Although there is general agreement with the essence of his announcement, hon. Members are asking specific questions. He was going to consult on the details of the previous scheme. Will he consult on the details of the scheme that he announced today?

Mr. Darling: On the last point, the regulations that will enable us to operate the scheme will be sent to the Social Security Advisory Committee and to others for comment. I do not want to mislead people. The Government have decided that this is the course of action that they will follow. The detail is clearly important, but given the time that has elapsed since the problem first arose, and the fact that people need to make arrangements now, I want to get the regulations through the House as quickly as possible, so that the matter is dealt with once and for all.
There are two other points. I did, indeed, see the Select Committee report last week. I am sorry that I could not tell the Committee last week what I announced today. The decision had already been made but it was not possible to announce it.
Finally, I agree with my hon. Friend that when people look back, they will wonder how it was that, for almost 10 years after the law had been changed, the Tories did not tell people what had happened. Perhaps we should not be surprised, in view of the other things that they did

while in office. It is an indictment of that Government that they caused so much misery and that it will cost quite a bit to sort the matter out.

Sir Norman Fowler: I welcome the proposals, which are fair and sensible.
There are two issues to consider—implementation and policy. On implementation, I share political responsibility with all other Ministers since 1987. However, does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that I published a White Paper in 1985–86 setting out the change to SERPS; I made a statement in the House; I introduced the Second Reading of the relevant Bill, which also had a Committee stage; and I published under my own signature a leaflet on the changes to SERPS that was distributed around the country? In no way can it be said that the legislation and proposals were slipped through.
On policy, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that he has now accepted our policy on SERPS and widows? There can be no doubt about that. Will he also confirm that had we listened to the advice of the Labour Opposition in the mid-1980s, who fought our proposals in every respect and all the way, no savings would have come out of this policy over the next 10, 20 or 30 years?

Mr. Darling: I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman feels obliged to try to clear his name, but let me make one point about his reign at the Department of Social Security. The Department gave the correct information for one year after the law was changed when he was Secretary of State. The problem is that although he announced widespread publicity, it never happened and the wrong information was given after 1987.
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for welcoming our proposals. It is a shame that the hon. Member for Havant could not do the same. However, that is not surprising: the right hon. Gentleman had the common sense to welcome the pension credit, which I announced two weeks ago, but the hon. Member for Havant has again shown how out of touch he is with the reality of pensions today.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the electors knew something on 1 May when they got rid of that crowd opposite? Is he aware that in addition to the £12 billion that the Tories have cost the British people, they piled on another £5 billion with BSE and left us with a £28 billion deficit that we had to clear? All that adds up, and this Tory party has the cheek to take £4 million in Short money from the taxpayer—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is a bit wide of the statement.

Mr. Skinner: Will my right hon. Friend take it into account that during the next six, nine or however many months it is to general election, we should lay the blame squarely and fairly where it should be—with that lot opposite? Most of them have been to public schools and are supposed to be clever, while we members of the ordinary, common, down-to-earth working class party, have had to bail them out.

Mr. Darling: I have never been described that way before, but the general thrust of my hon. Friend's remarks


is right. The public have a right to know what Governments are doing to their pensions, and next year we are introducing an individual pension statement that will go to people so that they can see how much they will have to retire on. Had such a statement existed 14 years ago, the Tory Government would have had to tell people that they were halving SERPS entitlement.
It is also an advantage that the Tories are now committed to a policy of encouraging the under-30s to opt out of the basic state pension. It is interesting that in response to a parliamentary question tabled not by a Labour Member but by a Tory, the Government Actuary revealed that it will cost 16-year-olds £10 a week just to buy back the basic state pension that the Tories want to take off them. They will know all about that in the future.

Rev. Martin Smyth: On behalf of my colleagues and others, I welcome the statement. I also welcome the apology by Conservative Front Benchers and trust that Governments might be prepared to acknowledge that they make mistakes. Any human who has never made a mistake has made very little else.
I recognise that the Government are bringing together policy and organisational responsibility into a single organisation dedicated to pensioners. How will that work out in relation to the policy announced by the right hon. Gentleman in his statement? He said:
next year, we will begin to send out combined pension statements, giving people more comprehensive information on their entitlements.
When will that start—when people are 45, 50, or just coming up to pensionable age? Any redress would take some time and problems might arise if the statements were running late.

Mr. Darling: The two matters to which the hon. Gentleman refers are separate. We are bringing together the organisation and the policing-making functions of the Department of Social Security in relation to pensions, and we are doing the same thing for those of working age and children. That means that one person has end to end responsibility and we avoid the problem that was endemic in the old DSS, which had something of a Byzantine structure, where it was not clear who was responsible for what. In that way, we can ensure that, when we issue leaflets in future, or where policy is to change, the information is delivered on the ground and everyone knows about it.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the pension statement. They will start to be issued next year and they will be issued on a regular basis. Eventually, I should like people to receive them every year. That will tell them how much basic state pension they can expect, how much they will receive from their occupational or stakeholder pension, and give an indication, if they saved a little more, of how much more that would be reflected in additional pension. The idea is to ensure that people, particularly younger people who do not always think about their pensions, will have their minds focused on the fact that, if they want a decent and good income in retirement, they need to save for it. In addition, as I said earlier, if any future Conservative Government comes along and starts trying to take pensions off people, or to privatise the pension system, the public will know all about it.

Mr. David Winnick: Would not the most dignified way for the Opposition Front-Bench

spokesman to have responded to the Government's welcome announcement have been for him simply to apologise unreservedly for all the anxiety that the Conservative Government caused so many people in Britain—and then to sit down?

Mr. Darling: I am sure that the hon. Member for Havant will work on his dignified responses. There have not been many so far.

Mr. David Rendel: As the person who first raised the matter with the National Audit Office, I, too, unreservedly welcome the Secretary of State's change of mind today. The second scheme that he has just announced is, without question, much better than his previous scheme and meets most, if not all, of the recommendations of the Public Administration Committee at its recent hearing. As a result of his statement, SERPS contributions that have already been made by people, whether in work or retired, now have a much higher value than they had only an hour ago. Is not some further recompense therefore also due from the Government to those who contracted out of SERPS and took out private pensions?

Mr. Darling: No, I do not think so. The measures that I have announced today will put right the injustice that occurred all those years ago, and that will be seen by most people as the right thing to do, as the hon. Gentleman also recognised. I do not propose to go further than that.

Dr. Lynne Jones: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement today. Did he notice that the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), who was in his place until a few moments ago, has chosen not to respond to the statement? My right hon. Friend talks about statements being issued to pensioners, which I welcome, but will they give pensioners an indication of their likely pension when they retire, whether or not the state pension is linked to earnings or to income?

Mr. Darling: The intention is that the statements will be issued to people of working age because it is they who need to know on how much they are likely to retire. The statement will give an indication of the value of the basic state pension. For example, had the statements been in widespread use now, they would announce that pensions are going up quite dramatically next year and would also set out the effect of the pension credit. The object of the pension statement is to help people of working age form a view about how much they need to save to enjoy the standard of living to which they wish to be entitled when they retire.

Mr. John McFall: As a member of the Public Administration Committee, I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on his profound statement today. I wish to comment on the sheer unalloyed cheek of the shadow Secretary of State. We have now had a disastrous hat-trick of BSE, rail privatisation and SERPS. The question on our lips is: why should the Government pick up the £12 billion bill that is the result of the previous Government's incompetence and a problem that has lasted since 1986? I remind the Secretary of State that, in evidence to the PAC, two former permanent secretaries, Sir Christopher France and
Dame Ann Bowtell, said that the Department was a shambles. The former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), told the PAC that it was not until 1988 that he found out about a problem that had lasted for 12 years.
Will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State reassure me that information will go down to local offices, where the problem arose in the first instance, and that people on the ground will get their due rewards as a result of today's statement?

Mr. Darling: The tragedy is that the cost of picking up the pieces left by the Tories falls on us. It does not fall on the Government or the country, but on individuals who pay contributions in their taxes. People are paying dearly for the 18 years in which the Tories were in power, and we had to clear up the mess that the Conservatives left.
My hon. Friend also asked about the Department. When I became Secretary of State, I was struck by the fact that the DSS was in grave need of an overhaul, basically because its organisation had not changed for 20 or 30 years. Its Byzantine structure made it difficult to organise things, and the relationship between the Department and its agencies needed to be changed. We are putting those changes in place and I hope that we are now getting a tighter organisation.
It was also necessary to replace information technology systems so that front-line staff could be kept up to date on policy and know what it is. Once again, however, the problem is lack of investment, which has been a common theme. At Prime Minister's Question Time, one Member after another complained about the lack of investment under the Tories in the rail system and other services. We have now made money available to replace the Department's IT system. The Conservatives would put all that at risk with their £16 billion pledge to cut public expenditure.

Mr. Derek Twigg: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), on today's statement and on the work that they and others have done to bring it about.
Today's Opposition statement was probably one of the most disgraceful that I have heard in my time in Parliament. The Opposition did not apologise and say, "Sorry, we have some regrets." Instead, they seemed to regret the fact that they had been found out. Does my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State agree that there was pensions mis-selling under the Tories? He has now sorted out the debacle that they caused back in 1986. There is now more investment for pensions and the mis-selling of pensions has been sorted out. The dividing lines are clear: the Tories do not care about pensions, but the Labour party does.

Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend is right. The matter is not just about the mis-selling of pensions or the inherited SERPS scandal, because the Tories have learned nothing yet. Their proposals to begin privatising the basic state pension will mean that many people under 30, who should not go into funded pensions, will be mis-sold pensions. We would have to pay the cost of that. Indeed, we know

that it will cost between £5 billion and £14 billion to begin the process of privatisation. In addition, the Conservative party must explain to 16-year-olds why they would have to pay £10 a week just to buy back the pensions that it would take away.

Mr. David Taylor: I do not know if there is a doctor in the House who can tell us whether, physiologically, if one has two brains, then one has no sense of shame. My right hon. Friend's planned root and branch reform of the Department is welcome. However, does it include forms, websites, and training manuals so that when legislation changes in future, we can check whether the information that the Department provides is accurate, comprehensive, free of gobbledegook and written in plain English? Will that be audited externally and independently?

Mr. Darling: We do need to take steps to make sure that information that is given to the public and any policy changes are communicated effectively and in a way that people can understand. We are doing that and have now got the necessary investment to replace antiquated IT systems so as to produce the service that people want. It is important that Governments should be honest about what they do and, if they make changes to pensions, they should tell the public. Whatever else they do, they should not put people in a position in which they do not have adequate pension cover. If we had not made changes when we came to office, nearly a third of working people heading for retirement would be dependent on benefit.
As a result of changes we made in the long term and the short term, we are tackling pensioner poverty and ensuring that more pensioners will be able to retire on a decent income. My announcement today means that at long last there is justice for the millions of pensioners who lost out very badly under the Tories.

Mr. Christopher Chope: The Secretary of State obviously enjoyed making some party political comments this afternoon. Does he accept the verdict of the Public Administration Committee, which said that his own Government were responsible for perpetuating the matter and for making an already unsatisfactory situation worse by neglecting issues between 1997 and 1999? Would not his failure to admit that show that the Government are keen to pass responsibility on to everyone else? Their basic approach is to say, "Not me, guv."

Mr. Darling: I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman is distressed when political points are made in the House of Commons. That is an inevitable consequence of political parties being here. I remember, before he lost his seat at the election before last, that he was one of the most strident advocates of Thatcherism at that time. I am sure that he voted with great enthusiasm for the measure to take money away from pensioners and not to tell them about it. I make no apology for the fact that the Government have looked at the problem, listened to people and, above all, put the situation right in a fair and workable way. The Tories could never have done that.

Mr. Mark Todd: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on two matters: first, on an excellent statement, which responded fully to concerns that had been expressed; and secondly, on the


process he followed. He listened carefully to trenchant criticisms of the proposal in the first place—some of them were made on the day of his statement—learned from them and chose to change his mind. He is to be complimented on that. A key outcome of the approach will be the provision of better information for pensioners about any change in policy, which is a course that I urged at that time. Does he agree?

Mr. Darling: I do agree with my hon. Friend, but I add a further point. During the past few months, there has been a tendency, particularly among the Conservatives, to say that the whole matter was somehow the fault of civil servants. It is not, and it was not. Political responsibility must lie with the Government in office at the time. I accept responsibility for anything that happens during the term of this Labour Government, including the time I have been Secretary of State. However, I also accept responsibility for putting the situation right. The situation was a scandal—it has cost billions of pounds and millions of pensioners could have lost out. We are putting it right and are determined to ensure that it does not happen again. The previous Government could never have done that—they would not face up to the problems they caused, they deliberately failed, year after year, to tell people what was happening and they did absolutely nothing about the situation.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: When councillors in the 1970s and 1980s were negligent, they were surcharged and forced, by law, to pay the debt from their own pockets. Some of them were bankrupted. In light of this costly inheritance—the report makes that clear—and the negligence of Conservative Ministers in the previous Government who are responsible for the debt that our taxpayers have to pay today, how about changing the law on surcharge? That would involve those Ministers paying out of their pockets, because they are responsible.

Mr. Darling: Perhaps we should send the bill to the treasurer of the Conservative party and ask him to pay it.

Dr. George Turner: I congratulate the Secretary of State on his announcement, which the 23,000 pensioners in Norfolk will applaud even if they will not personally benefit from it. Will he pass on to the Chancellor of the Exchequer our recognition of the fact that the economy that the Government are delivering allows us to make decisions, including this one, in an atmosphere in which public services are being improved, not cut? That has, I am sure, played an important part in the settlement's generosity.
My right hon. Friend knows from correspondence from my constituents that many pensioners are proud of their independence. They will welcome the fact that there will be a division in his Department to deal separately with issues affecting pensioners. Will separate letterheads be used? Independent pensioners feel that they worked all their life without having to take state aid, and they should recognise that they are entitled to a pension—they do not need to go with begging bowl in hand to claim it.

Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Part of the problem for the Department of Social Security was that it did not have a clear focus on the people whom it was meant to serve. Our efforts to help people into work

are different from the services that we are trying to provide for the elderly. The organisation for pensioners will be distinct in every sense from the working age and child elements. During the next few years, we will introduce improvements to ensure that pensioners receive their entitlements and gain the information that they need to enable them to make sensible planning decisions. That has not happened in the past.
My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner) made another good point. It is precisely because of prudent management of the economy and the stable conditions that have been achieved that we can sort out the current mess in a way that is satisfactory to the great majority of pensioners. The previous Government could not have done that, as they did not have the necessary means. We have those means and are able to take action within the prudent plans set out by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. Robert McCartney: I join hon. Members in welcoming the Secretary of State' s statement. He made much of the necessity for transparency and for making pensioners aware of their rights. However, were the Government behaving transparently when they abolished tax credits and, through the imposition of a stealth tax, provided much of the money that can be used for the purpose set out in the Secretary of State's welcome statement?

Mr. Darling: Those measures were debated in the Chamber at great length. If the hon. and learned Gentleman was not present, that is his responsibility and not mine. The Government's proposals have meant that the corporate tax regime is appropriate to the modern age. We have reduced corporation tax, which benefits the insurance companies that provide pensions. All our tax changes have contributed to the stable economic conditions that now prevail. As I said, those conditions have enabled us to sort out a colossally difficult problem within the prudent plans set out by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Point of Order

Mr. Dominic Grieve: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I seek your guidance on the way in which the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill is to be dealt with today? There are 666 Government amendments. Their groupings follow the practice that was adopted in the House of Lords. That process was condemned during discussion of the Bill in the other place, as there was a complete muddle in chronological sequence and in the items under discussion. Not only must items further down the list be voted on together with previous ones—that is often customary—but there is no chronological sequence for consideration. In those circumstances, is it in order for our approach to be changed and for us to vote on the groupings as they appear on the selection list?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman gave me notice of that point of order. The grouping of Lords amendments is a matter for the Member in charge of the Bill. We must proceed through the amendments in numerical order as they stand in the Bill, unless the House has ordered otherwise. It has not done so in this case.

Rewarding Democracy Commission

Mr. Jimmy Hood: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish a Commission, to be called the Rewarding Democracy Commission, to inquire into the reasons why those entitled to vote in elections either fail to register as an elector or decline to vote when registered and to produce recommendations for rewarding those who vote in parliamentary and other elections.
I want to encourage a debate throughout the country on how we can best re-engage our people with the democratic process. Only the enemies of democracy can be comfortable with the continued decline in voter participation in our elections. The most recent example of voting apathy occurred across the Atlantic. The identity of the most powerful politician in the world will be decided in a country where less than half of the people bothered to go out and register to vote. Fewer than one in four people who were registered will have voted for the eventual winner, whenever the result is declared.
We have welcomed three new hon. Members into our midst this week. They were elected through by-elections in Preston, West Bromwich and Anniesland in Glasgow. The turnout was 28 per cent. in Preston and West Bromwich, and 38 per cent. in Anniesland. None of us can be comfortable with such a continued decline in voter turnout. My Bill invites us all to do something, and to do something now.
We may ask what is the cause of the decline, and who is to blame. I do not intend to walk away from my responsibility, and I hope that our Parliament does not intend to walk away from its responsibility, to try to put things right. We live in a blame culture. I do not think it is good enough for us to continue to practise the politics of "It's not me, it's someone else". It has come to this, and we as parliamentarians must do something about it. Doing nothing is no longer an option.
I am not persuaded by Members who argue that the answer can be found in tinkering with the voting system. Such a proposition has been significantly weakened by the evidence of the most recent European elections, and indeed the Scottish parliamentary elections. Both were held under different proportional representation systems, which resulted in a devastating 24 per cent. turnout in European elections, and a turnout of only 57 per cent. in the Scottish parliamentary elections. That is far from what we should expect.
I am pleased to say that Charter 88 contacted me this week to say that it supports the Bill and the establishment of a commission to look into the problem. I welcome its support.
The 1997 general election featured the lowest turnout since 1935. Thanks to figures provided by the House of Commons Library, I can tell hon. Members that the turnout in the 1987 election, which brought me to the House, was 75.3 per cent. At the last election, it was down to 71.4 per cent. The average turnout for by-elections during the 1987 Parliament was 57 per cent. The average for the 16 by-elections that have taken place during the current Parliament is 42 per cent., or less.
It is not necessarily a United Kingdom problem, however. The turnout statistics for other European Union member states also flag up the danger of people becoming disengaged from our democracy. Austria had a 49 per cent.

turnout for the 1999 European elections. Worries have been expressed about what is happening in Austria. In France and Germany—where we hear of so-called Europhiles—the turnouts were 47 per cent. and 45 per cent. respectively. Nevertheless, our 24 per cent. turnout should be setting off alarm bells.
Other Parliaments have legislated to compel people to vote. In the Commonwealth, Australia has compulsory voting, enforced by an A$200 fine for non-voters. Similar laws operate in Latin America—in Argentina, Uruguay, Brazil, Costa Rica, Ecuador and Venezuela. In the European Union, Belgium, Luxembourg and Greece have compulsory voting. Belgium imposes a fine of up to BF5,000, and there is a similar fine in Luxembourg. Legislation in Greece confers the right to imprison people for not voting.
I reject compulsory voting, as my Bill shows. I believe that the United Kingdom Parliament should consider using the carrot, not the stick. I want the commission that is set up under my Bill to look at rewarding voters by incentivising voting procedures. The stick of compulsion is too authoritarian, too dictatorial and alien to our parliamentary democracy. My Bill proposes rewarding participating citizenship by making modest remunerations to people who vote in our parliamentary elections. The level of payment should be enough both to reward participation and to discourage non-voting.
Under my proposals, citizens who vote in the elections for their Parliaments will be rewarded. Any citizens who choose not to exercise their right penalise themselves, not others. My Bill will help to achieve real stakeholder democracy. Let us embrace that challenge. Time is not on our side. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. John Gummer: I exempt the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) from personal responsibility for the reduction in voting since he came into the House. It clearly is not entirely his fault. All of us should take some responsibility, but I must congratulate him on becoming an absolute dyed-in-the-wool Thatcherite. Evidently, the only answer to any of those questions is the market. The only thing that one has to do is to pay people to vote.
That seems a surprising proposition. The last time that we had that in the United Kingdom was during the unreformed days of the 18th century, when people who voted were liberally rewarded. They normally had to say which way they had voted, of course, before they got the funds. Now it is proposed that the mere mechanism of voting should bring the reward.
I am concerned about the Bill, not least because of the proposition that we should have a commission to investigate the whole issue. The hon. Gentleman said that we should do something about it and then suggested that we should get someone else to do something about it—appoint a commission.
The commission holds a great attraction. Think of the things that it could do. It could go to Australia and to South America to investigate Ecuador, Costa Rica, Argentina—it could go everywhere. It could investigate the places that have compulsory voting and then the places that do not. It could then discover whether it was better to be in Brazil than to be in Paraguay, whether Uruguay had something on Argentina, or whether Peru had something on Ecuador.
Then the commission could come back and report. Having reported, it could say: why not look elsewhere? Why concentrate only on voting? What about other help that is given by Government? Should it not have a fact-finding tour of China to discover how effective giving radios for sterilisation has been? After all, that too is—if I may put it like this—a carrot.
The hon. Gentleman proposes an entirely novel concept: democracy is not its own reward, but needs some special premium. It is the little man at the bottom of the cornflakes packet. People are encouraged by their children to buy a packet of breakfast cereal that they do not want to get some cheap and unnecessary toy that they do not need. The proposition is the same. Evidently, people who do not think that they want democracy are to be encouraged to use it by something that is trivial and unimportant.
I find that an unacceptable way of treating democracy. Democracy is the opportunity for all of us to make decisions about our future. Therefore, I have some cynicism about the reason why the Bill has been introduced.
I believe that the hon. Gentleman is seeking to introduce the Bill, first, because people are beginning to see that Parliament itself has been sidelined by the Government. I have no doubt at all why there have been such low turnouts for all parties. People recognise that the Prime Minister himself does not think that it is worth turning up in this place. He has the worst parliamentary record of any Prime Minister in history. His record is worse than that of any previous Labour Prime Minister, any previous Conservative Prime Minister and— remarkably, in so far as one can go back that far—any previous Liberal Prime Minister. It pains me to have to find something in which Liberal Democrat Members are not as bad as Labour Members.
The hon. Gentleman has introduced the Bill, secondly, because he knows very well that Labour activists will not get out their vote. He knows that, whatever happens in the next general election, as we have seen across the country, Labour activists do not want to bother. Whereas the number of Conservative activists is increasing, Labour activism is decreasing—[Interruption.]
It is all very well for the hon. Member for Paisley, North (Mrs. Adams) to laugh in her characteristic manner, but the fact is that, in my constituency, the Labour party has found it difficult to get activists out for any of the local government by-elections in the past two years. Moreover, Labour's difficulty is true universally. She laughs with the embarrassment of one who knows that she is wrong.
Thirdly, the Bill is being introduced simply because some people wish to avoid the fact that low turnouts are a good warning for politicians. We need to be in a position in which the public can tell us—all of us—that we are not doing what they believe politicians should do, and that, in this House, we are not providing the opportunities that they expect us to provide.
The fact is that a serious issue has been raised with a frivolous solution. I hope very much that I shall be able to divide the House against the Bill, and that those who vote against it will be saying, "We want this House to return to being the centre of the nation's political life. We want it to return to conducting proper scrutiny of the issues, and we do not want any more of these short hours

and comfortable arrangements for those who thought that they could come along here and work part time, without continuing in the evenings at all. We want to work harder and better on behalf of our constituents. Then they will come out and vote, and they will not need any trinkets to induce them to do so."

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 23 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business:—

The House divided: Ayes 79, Noes 143.

Division No. 361]
[4.33 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
McDonnell, John


Ashton, Joe
McFall, John


Austin, John
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Ballard, Jackie
Mackinlay, Andrew


Barron, Kevin
Mactaggart, Fiona


Best, Harold
McWalter, Tony


Chaytor, David
McWilliam, John



Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Coaker, Vernon
Meale, Alan


Cohen, Harry
Mitchell, Austin


Connarty, Michael
Moffatt, Laura


Corbyn, Jeremy
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Crausby, David
Mountford, Kali


Dalyell, Tam
O'Hara, Eddie


Davidson, Ian
Organ, Mrs Diana


Dismore, Andrew
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Dobbin, Jim
Pearson, Ian


Donohoe, Brian H
Pollard, Kerry


Drew, David
Powell, Sir Raymond


Gapes, Mike
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Gerrard, Neil
Robertson, John


Gibson, Dr Ian
(Glasgow Anniesland)


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Roy, Frank


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Ruane, Chris


Hancock, Mike
Savidge, Malcolm


Harris, Dr Evan
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Hinchliffe, David
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Hood, Jimmy
Skinner, Dennis


Hopkins, Kelvin
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Khabra, Piara S
Vis, Dr Rudi


Kilfoyle, Peter
Watts, David


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Linton, Martin



Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Tellers for the Ayes:


McCabe, Steve
Mr. Eric Clarke and


Macdonald, Calum
Mr. Bill Tynan.




NOES


Allan, Richard
Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia


Amess, David
Brady, Graham


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Brake, Tom


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Brand, Dr Peter


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Breed, Colin


Baker, Norman
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)


Barnes, Harry
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Beard, Nigel
Burstow, Paul


Beggs, Roy
Butterfill, John


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Cable, Dr Vincent


Bercow, John
Chapman, Sir Sydney


Blunt, Crispin
(Chipping Barnet)


Boswell, Tim
Chope, Christopher


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Clappison, James






Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Malins, Humfrey


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


(Rushcliffe)
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
May, Mrs Theresa


Collins, Tim
Moss, Malcolm


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Oaten, Mark


Cran, James
ÖPik, Lembit


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Ottaway, Richard


Day, Stephen
Paice, James


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Pickles, Eric


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Evans, Nigel
Randall, John


Fabricant, Michael
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Fallon, Michael
Rendel, David


Fearn, Ronnie
Robathan, Andrew


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Robertson, Laurence(Tewk'b'ry)


Foster, Don (Bath)
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Ruffley, David


Fox, Dr Liam
Russell, Bob(Colchester)


Fraser, Christopher
Salmond, Alex


Garnier, Edward
Sanders, Adrian


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Gibb, Nick
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Gidley, Sandra
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Gill, Christopher
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Spicer, Sir Michael


Godman, Dr Norman A
Spring, Richard


Gray, James 
Squire, Ms Rachel


Green, Damian
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Greenway, John
Steen, Anthony


Grieve, Dominic
Streeter, Gary


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Stunell, Andrew


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Swayne, Desmond


Hammond, Philip
Syms, Robert


Harvey, Nick
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Hawkins, Nick
Taylor, David(NW Leics)


Hayes, John 
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Heald, Oliver
Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Horam, John 
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Townend, John


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Trend, Michael


Jenkin, Bernard
Tyler, Paul


Key, Robert 
Walter, Robert


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Waterson, Nigel


Lait, Mrs Jacqui 
Webb, Steve


Letwin, Oliver 
Welsh, Andrew


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham) 
Whittingdale, John


Llwyd, Elfyn
Wilkinson, John


Loughton, Tim
Willetts, David


Luff, Peter 
Wilshire, David


McCartney, Robert (N Down)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (congleton)


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Tellers for the Noes:


Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert
Mr. Simon Burns and


McLoughlin, Patrick
Mr. Stephen O'Brien.

Question accordingly negatived.

Orders of the Day — Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill and Disqualifications Bill(Allocation of Time)

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill and the Disqualifications Bill:—

Lords Amendments

1.—(1) Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill shall be completed at today's sitting and, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion at midnight.

(2) Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Disqualifications Bill shall be completed in one allotted day and, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion three hours after their commencement.

2.—(1) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing proceedings on either Bill to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1.

(2) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided.

(3) If that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment, the Speaker shall then put forthwith—

(a) a single Question on any further Amendments of the Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown, and
(b) the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown that this House agrees or disagrees with the Lords in their Amendment or (as the case may be) in their Amendment as amended.

(4) The Speaker shall then put forthwith—

(a) a single Question on any Amendments moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment, and
(b) the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown that this House agrees or disagrees with the Lords in their Amendment or (as the case may be) in their Amendment as amended.

(5) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown that this House disagrees with the Lords in a Lords Amendment.

(6) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question that this House agrees with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments.

(7) As soon as the House has—

(a) agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments, or
(b) disposed of an Amendment relevant to a Lords Amendment which has been disagreed to,

the Speaker shall put forthwith a single Question on any Amendments moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to the Lords Amendment.

Subsequent stages

3.—(1) The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the consideration forthwith of any further Message from the Lords on either Bill.

(2) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.

4.—(1) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 3.

(2) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided.

(3) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair.

(4) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on or relevant to any of the remaining items in the Lords Message.

(5) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question that this House agrees with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

Reasons Committee

5.—(1) This paragraph applies to any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, in relation to either Bill, for the appointment, nomination and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the appointment of its Chairman.

(2) The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on the Motion.

(3) The Committee shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.

(4) Proceedings in the Committee shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion 30 minutes after their commencement.

(5) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with sub-paragraph (4), the Chairman shall—

(a) first put forthwith any Question which has been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and
(b) then put forthwith successively Questions on Motions which may be made by a Minister of the Crown for assigning a Reason for disagreeing with the Lords in any of their Amendments.

(6) The proceedings of the Committee shall be reported without any further Question being put.

Miscellaneous

6.—(1) The following paragraphs apply to—

(a) proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill,
(b) proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Disqualifications Bill,
(c) proceedings on any further Message from the Lords on either Bill, and
(d) proceedings on the appointment, nomination and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons (and the appointment of its Chairman) and the Report of such a Committee.

7. Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.

8. The proceedings shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

9. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings shall be made except by a Minister of the Crown; and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

10.—(1) If on a day on which any of the proceedings take place a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would stand over to Seven o'clock—

(a) that Motion stands over until the conclusion of any of the proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time, and
(b) the bringing to a conclusion of any of the proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion after that time is postponed for a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

(2) If a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 stands over from an earlier day to such a day, the bringing to a conclusion of any of the proceedings on that day is postponed for a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

11. If the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the expiry of the period at the end of which any of the proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

The allotted day

12. In this Order, "allotted day" means any day on which the Disqualifications Bill is put down on the main business as first Government Order of the Day.

As Opposition Front-Bench Members will no doubt observe, this is the second time this week that I have moved a motion to timetable certain Bills.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: We had noticed.

Mr. Straw: The motion is in respect of the third and fourth Bills that it has been necessary to subject to a timetable motion this week.
May I deal with the need for guillotines? It may be helpful if I first dispose of the reasons that are irrelevant to our requirement for timetable motions. It has been suggested that we have needed timetable motions in this Session because there have been more Government Bills than in any similar Session, of a normal length, between elections. That is incorrect. Leaving aside the long Sessions that have occurred after each election—since 1974, although not including it—more Government Bills were considered during five separate Sessions between 1979 and 1997 than in this Session.
Nor is it a case, as has been alleged, of the late introduction of Bills. Bills have been introduced into this House and the other place either at a similar time to previous years or earlier. If we compare the 1994–95 Session with this one, for example—it was a similar length and rather fewer Bills were introduced—22 Bills were introduced by March 1995 into the Commons, compared with the 31 that had been introduced by March 2000.

Mr. David Wilshire: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Straw: I should like to deal with the matter in hand first, and then of course I will give way.
So the guillotines are not to do with the fact that there have been more Bills in this Session, because there have not, or with the late introduction of Bills, because that has not occurred either.

Mr. Eric Forth: What is it then?

Mr. Straw: I am glad that that has been asked, on cue, by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth).

Mr. Wilshire: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way on this point?

Mr. Straw: I am elaborating on this point, and I may even answer the hon. Gentleman's question without the need for an intervention from him.
There have been two Bills additional to those anticipated at the time of the Queen's Speech last year. The Football (Disorder) Bill, was, in principle, supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Not by me.

Mr. Straw: I am glad that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has mentioned that. The fact that it could easily have been filibustered by the right hon. and learned Gentleman was one of the reasons why we had to have a timetable motion on that. Yet again, the right hon. and learned Gentleman's own side, having supported the principle of the Bill, could not deliver.
The Football (Disorder) Bill was widely supported by the Opposition Front Bench in principle, even though they could not deliver.

Mr. Forth: So what?

Mr. Straw: I was just going to say that there was a need for it. As far as we can judge, it has proved very successful.
There was another Bill that we judged necessary, although I accept that it has been controversial throughout its passage. I refer to the Bill to implement the recommendations of the former chairman of the Conservative party, Chris Patten, in respect of police in Northern Ireland. I continue to take the view that that was necessary, as do my right hon. and hon. Friends.
The introduction of two additional Bills is one reason for the number of guillotines. The second is that throughout the passage of Bills for which I have been responsible in my three and a half years as Home Secretary, I have gone out of my way to ensure that proposals are judged on their merits and not on the fact that there may be a weight of votes on our side, which there is. Where we can, we have listened to amendments and have then amended Bills. If we believed that suggestions for amendments from the Opposition Benches, as well as from our side, would command the approval of the House and improve the Bill, we accepted them. That has occurred at every stage.
I thank individual Opposition Members as much as my right hon. and hon. Friends for the way in which every Bill in which I have been involved has been improved as a result of the parliamentary process. However, people cannot have it both ways, and that inevitably means that when we improve a Bill because we are listening to the proposals made from the Opposition as well as the Government Benches, the Bill has to be amended. Sometimes—indeed, often—an undertaking has to be given in this House to amend a Bill in the other place; there is then traffic back to this place.
The third and overriding reason for this situation is that we cannot, and have never been able to, command a majority in the other place, whereas, although there were many Sessions in which Conservative Governments introduced Bills that were just as controversial as some of those we have introduced during this Session—in some cases, for example, in 1988–89, they were more controversial—the Conservatives could always guarantee

that they would obtain a majority in the other place. That was true even on a notorious matter on which they later came to regret their majority—the deeply divisive poll tax—when people who had never previously been seen in the other place, and who were not even known to the attendants, were pulled out of the woodwork to vote for the Conservatives so that the measure would be passed. Thus, it is now more likely not only that amendments will be carried in the other place against the advice of the Government but that more time will have to be allocated.

Mr. Wilshire: I want to take the right hon. Gentleman back to one of his earlier points: was he arguing that the fact that there had been fewer Bills than usual was a plus? I should have thought that a better argument would be that there had been more Bills, so that there was less time per Bill. If the number of Bills is the same and the right hon. Gentleman has still got himself into this mess, he is quite incompetent.

Mr. Straw: I do not accept for a second that the Government are in any sort of mess. I was dealing with charges made in the House and elsewhere regarding our reasons for imposing guillotines—

Mr. Hogg: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Straw: I will give way in a second.
I was explaining why we have had to impose four guillotines this week. I merely point out that, looking back over the past 20 years, there is nothing especially unusual either in the number of guillotines or in the number of Bills for the whole Session. The central allegation made by the Conservatives is that there have been too many Bills during this Session. That is incorrect. The main reason for this end-loading is that we have accepted many amendments; we have listened to what has been said—I regard that as a merit; and, above all, we do not command a majority in the other place.

Mr. Dominic Grieve: The Bill left this House at Easter and its first day in Committee in the other place was on 11 May. After that, will the Secretary of State confirm that it did not reappear in the House of Lords until 10 October? Surely that delay is entirely down to the Government. If they had been prepared to bring the measure back earlier, the current logjam would not have occurred and we would not be facing this disgraceful situation today.

Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman would be correct had the other place been idle from the day on which the Bill left this House to the day on which it went into Committee in the other place. It is true that the Bill could have been scheduled earlier, but that would only have meant that—assuming that the Conservatives had behaved towards other measures as they did towards this one—some other measure would have been subject to the guillotine.

Mr. Hogg: May I take the right hon. Gentleman back to his point that the Government do not command a majority in the other place? That is true. The right hon. Gentleman implies that a large number of amendments are passed by the other place contrary to the Government's advice, and that that is the source of his problem.
There are 665 amendments to this Bill. Will the Home Secretary tell the House how many of them are Government amendments—or are supported by the Government—and how many were passed contrary to their advice?

Mr. Straw: My recollection is that there are 666 amendments, one of which was passed contrary to the advice of the Government. However, the fact that there are a great number of amendments makes my point rather than the right hon. and learned Gentleman's—[Interruption.] A great number of amendments were tabled in response to the concerns that were expressed. Neither this House nor the other place can have it both ways. We have been listening, and I have been anxious to ensure that, so far as possible, we proceed with the Bill on the basis of consensus between the parties.
It is widely accepted—in this country, at least—that we do not want to go down the same road as the United States and that it is not a good idea for a campaign manager also to pop up as a returning officer. Therefore, we should ensure that the ground rules are operated and moderated by people who are above the battle and that, so far as possible, there is widespread agreement between the parties about how those ground rules should operate.

Mr. Alex Salmond: The Home Secretary is missing the point. He started with consensus on the Bill. Its main provisions were implemented by voluntary agreement between the parties in the Scottish elections last year, but he has now arrived at a pig's breakfast and the consensus has totally fallen apart, especially on section 4. That must surely be his responsibility. Is he seriously suggesting that a Bill with 666 amendments is in a fit condition to be guillotined?

Mr. Straw: I do not accept for a second that the consensus has fallen apart, but there will be disagreement about some issues. The hon. Gentleman refers to clause 4. I am not sure whether he is talking about the provisions on advice for the conduct of referendums. We have strengthened the provisions on controlling expenditure in referendums; they are far stronger than those proposed in the Neill report. I exempt the Scottish National party from criticism about party funding because, so far as I recall, they were always in favour of statutory controls on party funding, but I shall not take criticism from the principal Opposition party, because it presided over the most scandalous situation with regard to the funding of political parties. In the face of all sorts of unacceptable things that appeared to be going on, we called for the Nolan committee on standards in public life to be allowed to examine party funding.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: The Conservatives fought it.

Mr. Straw: They not only fought it, but refused to allow the Nolan committee to look at the matter. It has fallen to us to clean up the conduct of British politics—we said that we would do so in our manifesto—first by asking what became the Neill committee to study the matter and then by introducing the changes that we propose.

Mr. John Bercow: rose—

Mr. Straw: I shall give way, but then I want to make progress.

Mr. Bercow: Is the right hon. Gentleman seriously advancing the novel and pernicious parliamentary doctrine that the more heavily amended a Bill is in the other place, the greater the justification for truncating its consideration in the House? Does he not accept that, irrespective of whether more or too many Bills have been introduced this Session, there is a serious case to answer—the charge that there have been more ill-conceived, badly drafted and hastily introduced Bills under this Administration?

Mr. Straw: The advantage of my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) and me is that our memory goes back beyond May 1997, as does the memory of many of those sitting on the Liberal Democrat Benches. If the hon. Gentleman wants to have a competition about really badly drafted Bills, he should have been in the House during the first and second Sessions of the 1979 to 1983 Parliament.

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend was still at school.

Mr. Straw: That is no excuse. After all, the Leader of the Opposition was also still at school then, but while other people were going out in the evening and enjoying themselves, he was studying Hansard—between his 14 pints—day by day and week by week. He would surely have known about the utter chaos that the previous Administration got themselves into. For example, with the help of my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), the Local Government, Planning and Land Bill was so huge and chaotic that the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) had to withdraw it altogether and start again. Then, when the Bill came back at the end of the 1980 session—[Interruption.] The Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) Bill (No.2) is in good order. The only problem is that the other place has decided not to acknowledge that. There cannot have been a better drafted, simpler Bill than that and, in due course, it will ensure justice for the victims of crime as well as justice for defendants. It will speed up the criminal justice system. The fact that the Conservatives have sabotaged that Bill illustrates how hollow is their claim to be taken seriously on law and order and crime, as on many other issues.
I did not answer the first question of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). I do not think that the guillotine is pernicious; it is regrettable, but it has happened under Governments of both persuasions. The majority of the 666 amendments are technical and consequential. Owing to the structure of this Bill, one change in principle has led to a huge number of consequential and similar amendments.
So far, the Bill has been the subject of considerable scrutiny. First, I made an oral statement on the Neill report in July 1999. We then had a full day's debate on the report, on a motion for the Adjournment, in November 1999, and we published the draft Bill. Since the Bill itself was published, the two Houses together have spent 114 hours considering it and a considerable number of
changes have been made. With the hours that we will spend on the Bill today, we think that that is adequate time for consideration.
One of our anxieties was also the anxiety of a Government of a different persuasion in the early 1980s—that if we did not guillotine the Bill, the debate would simply be filibustered. The Conservatives often deny that charge, but leaving aside the provocative term "filibuster", let us consider what happened during the debate on Monday. I gather that one of the complaints today is that it will be some time before we get to group 10. On Monday, there was every opportunity—even in the three or four hours available—for the House to debate the three important groups of amendments. The other groups were all technical.
What happened? We spent an inordinate length of time on the first group, which was third in order of importance. We then moved on to the second group, which concerned the most technical issue imaginable—the naming of the National Assembly for Wales—and other consequential amendments. The Conservatives decided to go on at such length on that issue—to dance on the point of a needle, for hour after hour—that when 12 o'clock came there was no chance to debate any of the other issues or to allow my hon. Friends or hon. Members to express concern about what the Government were doing.

Mr. Forth: That is what happens with a guillotine.

Mr. Straw: No, it is what happens when an Opposition cannot see sense. If I had been on the Opposition Benches, I would have found many more opportunities to have a pop at the Government. Conservative Members completely failed to use those opportunities. It was hopeless. We could truncate this debate, but it is possible that we will get into a similar position today.

Mr. Grieve: Does the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge, as I think his colleagues on the Treasury Bench have, that at no time has the Bill been subject to any sort of filibuster in this place—not in Committee, on Report or on Second Reading? There has been complete co-operation in an attempt to get through substantial constitutional legislation in proper form. Will he also understand that the complaint today is that, at the end of the process, we face 666 amendments and have minimal time to consider important further changes?

Mr. Straw: My understanding is that the Conservative Opposition behaved very constructively in Committee, and we are grateful to them for that. The difficulty that they face is one that we faced for part of the 1980s, although after a few election defeats, we finally learned our lesson. The Conservative party cannot speak for its Back Benchers when we discuss voluntary arrangements. That is a fact of life.
Many of the guillotine motions that were introduced between 1979 and 1997 were introduced in the 1980s. That is because we thought that our constituents needed to see us arguing about tiny points into the small hours of the morning. Gradually, we came to the view that our constituents wanted us to examine legislation sensibly and rationally, and the best way to do that is by voluntary

agreement. It gives an Opposition more flexibility, but there must be a backstop. We can then get on with our other job of representing our constituents.

Mr. Paul Tyler: Can the Home Secretary confirm that no attempt was made to reach a voluntary agreement on a programme motion on Monday night, yesterday or today? The Government have not given the House the opportunity to decide how best to arrange these matters or how to avoid the filibustering which, as he rightly said, took place on Monday night.

Mr. Straw: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am not privy to the discussions through the usual channels. However, if he is right and the Government did not invite discussion on the timetable motion, there is nothing to stop the Opposition Chief Whip or the Liberal Democrat Chief Whip making such a suggestion. We have hard experience of dealing with the official Opposition, if not the Liberal Democrats, and Conservative Members have taken the opportunity to speak at length—that is a statement of fact—so I think that Government business managers judged that the risks of taking the approach that the hon. Gentleman suggests would be too great.
One complaint about the guillotine motion for the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill is that it is being introduced for a long Bill to which there are 666 amendments. However, if one makes that complaint about that Bill, one cannot make a similar complaint about the Disqualifications Bill. I cannot think of a shorter Bill that has come before the House in the whole Session. It is one page long, with just one operative clause and two consequential ones. It is a simple Bill with just three clauses—

Mr. Forth: It is a constitutional Bill.

Mr. Straw: I know that opinions about the Bill differ. In fact, some Conservative Members feel so strongly about it that, if there were no backstop to the debate, they would do their best to talk it out.
The Bill has been the subject of considerable discussion in the House. It was introduced in December 1999 and its Second Reading, Committee and Report stages were held on 25 and 26 January and lasted more than 26 hours. That was a memorable occasion. The Government were not having their best week; Prime Minister's Question Time was coming up, offering the Leader of the Opposition a great opportunity to shine. What did Conservative Back Benchers do? They took away the opportunity provided each week for the Leader of the Opposition to shine. [Interruption.] All the leadership bids take place in the Conservative party.

Mr. Andrew Robathan: The Home Secretary has just said that, in his eyes, an important constitutional measure is much less important than the little bit of spin that may be put by one party or another on Prime Minister's questions. Those of use who care about the constitution of this country were very concerned about the Disqualifications Bill, and we remain so. The fact that we debated it at length show the care that Conservative Members took. The Home Secretary seems to think that a little bit of spin from Prime Minister's questions is more important than that.

Mr. Straw: I do not recall saying that—indeed, I did not say it. I was making the point that Conservative


Members managed to talk out not Government business but the important part of the parliamentary week in which the Prime Minister is subject to questioning, not least by the Leader of the Opposition. I found that an eccentric consequence. There were many Conservative Members, although obviously not the hon. Gentleman, who found it an eccentric notion as well.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Mr. Straw: No. If the hon. Gentleman will excuse me, I must make progress.
The Bill has been discussed at great length. It has also been discussed in the other place. It is unfortunate that in the other place, clause 1 was knocked out, but it is widely accepted that it is entirely legitimate for this House to seek to put the operative clause back in the Bill.
The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and—

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. George Howarth): Sefton, East.

Mr. Hogg: The Home Secretary is not very good at constituency names.

Mr. Straw: I am good at many other things, but I am not very good at long constituency names which do not reflect a serious sense of place. If my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) were simply called the hon. Member for Kirkby, which is a proper place, I would know it. The problem goes back to Peter Walker and the artificial boundaries in the Local Government Act 1972. Constituencies were given the names of all sorts of strange places and even brooks in towns, which we had never heard of, and nor had the people in the town.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: This is a filibuster.

Mr. Straw: No, it is not a filibuster. I have one more point to make.
There will be complaints from the Opposition about the guillotine motion, as there always are from the Opposition, whichever party is in opposition. We used to make such complaints in the 1980s, but by the 1990s, particularly in the Parliament between 1992 and 1997, even when we disagreed with the principle of the Bill, we sought to enter into voluntary agreement wherever we could, because we thought that that was much more sensible. There was one Session, 1994–95, in which there were no guillotines at all, because of co-operation from the Opposition. It is a learning curve for the Opposition.
I rest my case by repeating the sage and amusing words of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions—

Mr. Forth: Which constituency?

Mr. Straw: Sunderland.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: North or South?

Mr. Straw: One or the other. Sunderland, South. Winding up the guillotine debate on Monday, my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) said:
I have never managed to work up much indignation about timetabling. However hard they search the Official Report, Opposition Members will not find one scintilla of indignation from me on the subject of guillotines during my years in Parliament. In my early days in opposition, I recall spending the best part of 150 hours considering the Bill that became the Water Act 1989, but covering barely 10 clauses. At the end of that, the Minister in charge, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), announced a guillotine. At that point, the Opposition were all supposed to rise and say how outrageous it all was. Personally, I could have kissed him.—[Official Report, 27 November 2000; Vol. 357, c. 711.]
None of us could have put it better. I look forward to the embraces and kisses of the Opposition.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: Well, well, well. National guillotine week carries on. The only surprise is that the affable Home Secretary has chosen to be chief executioner every day.
Some of us who were in the House in the 1970s are reminded of poor old Michael Foot—in those days of greater honour, the Leader of the House used to move guillotine motions, rather than leaving it to departmental Ministers. I remember poor old Michael Foot moving five guillotine motions in one day. That ruined his reputation as a parliamentarian.
We value the Home Secretary's reputation as someone who is serious about this place. He is in such stark contrast to the Prime Minister and others who treat the Chamber in a cavalier way, but I regret that by moving four guillotine motions this week, he is following Michael Foot's road.
The Home Secretary cannot be comfortable with what he is doing today. It arises from the fact that an arrogant and incompetent Government have got their legislative programme horribly wrong. Labour Members who shake their heads—especially the parliamentary private secretary, the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Caplin)—need to think about what the business managers have done.
This Labour Government have the biggest majority in the House in modern times and have reformed the other place to their supposed advantage, but in the final week of the longest Session in nearly 80 years—in the run-up to a new Queen's Speech which, unusually, will be delivered in December—we need to ask why they have been so incompetent and arrogant. The Home Secretary maintains that there is not an excessive number of Bills. I can let that remark pass, but I cannot ignore the sheer incompetence of not getting the Bills ready in time and, having got them ready, not being able to proceed with them.
Let us be specific about the two Bills that are relevant to the guillotine motion. As my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) reminded us in his powerful intervention, the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill started in Committee in the other place on 11 May, but its second day in Committee was not until 10 October. That was pure incompetence—there was no filibustering or delay by the Opposition parties. The Government did not have their Bill properly drafted, could not make progress and did not know what they wanted


to do. Month after month, like a rabbit in front of headlights, progress on the Bill remained absolutely stationary. We are rushing it through tonight on a timetable motion because of the Government's delays, not because of filibustering by the Opposition.
The Disqualifications Bill will be rushed through the House tomorrow. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), will recall that way back in January we stayed up all night because it was being rushed through as a matter of urgency. It was so urgent that it did not appear in the other place until October and has only just returned to us. Why such a huge delay? Again, it is due to total incompetence. Many people did not want the Bill; the Government lost their nerve; pressure was put on them by the Irish Government and Sinn Fein; and they had to reintroduce it in the other place. Once again, there was no undue delay or excessive, unreasonable opposition in the other place.

Mr. Bercow: Given how controversial the Disqualifications Bill has proved, does my right hon. Friend have any idea of the audacity displayed by the Under-Secretary when he introduced it on Second Reading? He said:
I hope that this will not be too long a debate.—[Official Report, 24 January 2000; Vol. 343, c. 26]
Is that not evidence of the Government's early determination to truncate its consideration?

Mr. MacKay: I feel sorry for the Under-Secretary, who seems to have disappeared—no, he is just about in the Chamber. He was set up and did not know what the Bill was all about. He had been told, "Don't worry. It's uncontroversial. It will get through in half an hour." Some 14 or 15 hours later, he was beginning to understand all about it. We should be sympathetic towards him; he was unaware that he had been sold a pup.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: Does that not show the real need for the programming of all Bills at the beginning of a parliamentary Session? The right hon. Gentleman makes the argument well. We need to ensure that there is enough time to debate controversial Bills, and that we have a parliamentary timetable. Programming will achieve that.

Mr. MacKay: If a Bill is introduced in January as a matter of urgency and goes through all its stages in the House, the fact that it does not reappear until the autumn in the other place is entirely the Government's fault. The other place did not have much legislation in February, March and April, and there was every opportunity for the Bill to be taken through at leisure, and it could have been on the statute book— regrettably —because of the Government's majority. It is the Government who are incompetent in that they introduce badly drafted Bills and do not proceed with them quickly. This is no case for the hon. Lady's pet passion of timetabling.
As has been mentioned, 666 amendments have been tabled to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill. It is a significant Bill which goes to the heart of our democracy, yet in a few hours tonight we are supposed to

consider all those amendments. The Home Secretary is right that some of those amendments are consequential, but nowhere near 666 of them.
The Bill left the House with 181 pages and it has come back with more than 240 pages.

Dr. Phyllis Starkey: rose—

Mr. MacKay: I will give way in a moment.
It is a different Bill, yet in the limited time available to us tonight we will have no opportunity to consider it. There are two pages of amendments and there is no way that we shall get through them all. The third group of amendments, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and myself, closely affects Northern Ireland. Those amendments will need considerable discussion and there is no way in which we shall be able to deal with them all.

Dr. Starkey: rose—

Mr. MacKay: I have not forgotten the hon. Lady.
There is no doubt that the majority of the amendments will not be debated tonight. Does that matter? Are they all consequential or not? Some matter greatly. The Representation of the People Act 1983 governs our elections to this place. The amendments to that Act were moved in the other place and we will not discuss any of them tonight. Is the Home Secretary happy that major amendments to the way in which we conduct elections to this place will have been debated and passed in the other place without any debate here simply because they are so far down the list and time is limited this late in the Session?
The Deputy Prime Minister, discussing the future of the National Air Traffic Services yesterday, said that it was disgraceful that the other place should take final and serious decisions on that matter. Yet the Representation of the People Act is entirely to do with us. It concerns the election of Members to this place. Major changes have been made, most of which we do not necessarily object to, but they need to be debated and they will not be because the Home Secretary has moved the guillotine motion today. Can he explain himself?

Mr. Straw: There would be some strength in the right hon. Gentleman's argument if the overwhelming bulk of the Bill were not agreed between the parties. The right hon. Gentleman has just shot down his own argument by saying, in a double negative, that the Opposition did not necessarily disagree with a large number of the amendments down for consideration. That is because they have been the subject of consultation. The basic structure of the Bill is the same as when it left the House. I accept, however, that it is technical and has needed frequent amendment in the other place in response to undertakings in the House which, for the most part, have been the subject of consultation with various political parties.
As to whether there will be enough time to reach the final groups of amendments, that is entirely in the hands of the Opposition. There will not be enough time if Opposition Members behave as they did the other day, but there will be if they behave sensibly.

Mr. MacKay: I disagree, as the matter is entirely in the hands of the Government, who are arrogantly


timetabling a Bill and not allowing us to debate it. There is no practical way of debating all the groups of amendments. In my capacity as shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, I can say that the Northern Ireland amendments are very serious and will require careful consideration—[Interruption.] As the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office is explaining to the Home Secretary, those are serious amendments, and the leader of the Ulster Unionist party, his colleagues, and Conservative Members feel strongly about them. There is no possibility that we shall reach the amendments on the Representation of the People Act 1983, which will affect election to the House.
In response to the point that the Home Secretary has just made, I emphasise that we broadly support the measure. However, the broad support of those on the Conservative Front Bench does not mean that other Members or other parties agree with the legislation. I agree with the Home Secretary that most of the Bill is non-controversial, but people with different views will want to examine the Home Secretary's proposals. It is not controversial in party political terms, but it does relate to democracy and elections to the House and is extremely important. There is no opportunity, however, to look at the proposals that affect the election of Members of Parliament, all of which have come from the other place, whose Members will not be directly involved in parliamentary elections. Indeed, they are not even allowed to vote in those elections.
That constitutional outrage is contrary to what the Deputy Prime Minister said yesterday in a debate on a separate matter. The Home Secretary should be ashamed, and the matter needs to be put right. At this late hour, he should come up with a manuscript amendment to ensure that, at the very least, amendments relating to the Representation of the People Act and parliamentary elections are properly debated and discussed by the House; otherwise, we shall be in an anomalous position with which, I know, the Home Secretary will be uncomfortable, as he cannot possibly be right.

Dr. Starkey: I knew that the right hon. Gentleman would eventually keep his promise.
The burden of the right hon. Gentleman's argument is that there is insufficient time to discuss the substance of the Bill. Would it not be more logical for him to cut short debate on the allocation of time, thereby making additional hours available for the substantive debate that will stop at midnight, but which could start now?

Mr. MacKay: Debate on these Bills is being guillotined and truncated, and all neutral outside observers feel that that is thoroughly wrong. This important matter needs to be discussed by the House. If the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) thinks that it is not important and is relaxed about the fact that, in the last week of a Session, a Bill which is practically a new measure has come from the House of Lords and many amendments to it will not be debated in the Chamber, I am amazed that she wishes to belong to the House of Commons. What was the point of her coming here in the first place?

Dr. Starkey: I shall rephrase my question so that the right hon. Gentleman gets the point. If this bit of the debate—which, frankly, is fruitless—were cut short,

it would add to the time available to discuss substantive amendments. I am proposing a method by which the Opposition could add an hour and a half to the time available to discuss the Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to pass up that chance, that demonstrates that all his concern about discussing the Bill is hogwash.

Mr. MacKay: I have rarely been more pleased in my 20-odd years in the House to have given way to a Labour Member. The hon. Lady gave the game away when she said that our debate is fruitless. The pure arrogance of new Labour, of which the hon. Lady is a caricature, was much in evidence. I am immensely grateful for her contribution, which will be used to the full in future.
If I agreed that we should not pursue the serious wrong of guillotining the Bills—

Mr. Hogg: My right hon. Friend would not carry his colleagues with him.

Mr. MacKay: I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to restrain himself for a moment. I used the word "if". If I was of a charitable nature and wanted to do that, and if I managed to persuade, by the strength of my argument, my right hon. and learned Friend and other right hon. and hon. Friends not to speak, we would immediately move on to the main business. If I did so, there would be a slight change. The time available to debate each amendment would be 0.6 of a second instead of 0.36 of a second. With 666 amendments to consider, curtailing the debate would make virtually no difference to our consideration of those amendments, but it makes a huge difference to explaining to Labour Members that the guillotine breaches democracy and is a constitutional outrage. The proposal is totally wrong, and they will live to regret it.
I turn to the specifics of both Bills. I should appreciate it if the Home Secretary and the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, who, I guess, will tomorrow carry some of the burden associated with the Disqualifications Bill, paid a little attention. More importantly, I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who will also be closely involved, will pay attention.
A strand runs through both Bills, which significantly affects Northern Ireland—the appeasement of and concessions to Sinn Fein. There is no reason to pass the Disqualifications Bill other than to offer an additional confidence-building measure to Sinn Fein so that its politicians will be able to sit, on the one hand, in the Northern Ireland Assembly—possibly as Ministers in the Executive—and, on the other, in the Irish Dail and, possibly, in this Parliament. That is wrong because the Republic of Ireland is not part of the Commonwealth and because the reasons behind that measure are very dubious.
The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has to deal with such matters on an hourly basis, so he will know that endless concessions have been made to the republicans, and that nothing has been gained in return from them. It has been all give by the Government and all take by the republicans.

Mr. Robert McCartney: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some of those who may sit in the Dail Eireann and in the House may also sit as fully fledged members of the seven-man IRA military council?

Mr. MacKay: That could conceivably happen. I suggest that the hon. and learned Gentleman and I
pursue that matter further in tomorrow's debate—that is, if he is able to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in the three hours available. It is far from certain whether he will be able to do so as we shall be discussing a controversial measure that is widely opposed.
The Home Secretary lightly referred to the Disqualifications Bill as a modest little measure of only a few clauses and said that a debate of three hours would surely be sufficient. However, the amendment passed in the Lords removed clause 1. That effectively castrates it, which was our intention. We are not talking about minor amendments or small details in a large Bill about which we could have a narrow debate—you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would rightly call us to order if we strayed. We are talking about the detail of an entire Bill.
We need to discuss all the merits of a Bill which has been rejected in another place. Will the Home Secretary speculate on when a whole Bill was last thrown out by the other place? The answer must be at least several years ago. A Bill that was effectively thrown out will be reinstated in just three hours. I am sure that, on reflection, he will agree that that is wrong.

Mr. Forth: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Bill must be regarded as a constitutional measure? It has important implications for the House and the other place, as it bears on people's qualifications to sit in the House of Commons. It also bears on the relationship between this place, the Northern Ireland Assembly and, potentially, the Dail in Ireland. Can there be any more constitutional measure than that?

Mr. MacKay: As so often, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) is right. We are discussing a serious constitutional measure, which makes changes that many hon. Members and a majority in the other place want to resist. We will attempt to do so tomorrow in the limited time available.
Let us return to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill, and its effects on Northern Ireland and on the funding of political parties. After yesterday's amusing outburst from the Home Secretary about the different national football teams in our country, and in the light of his desire, which I broadly share, to increase awareness of what he likes to call Britishness, one might have assumed that he would want United Kingdom political parties to be treated identically.
However, it has shocked many people that measures ensuring that political parties cannot receive foreign donations will not apply in Northern Ireland, although it has been widely agreed in Parliament, and accepted in the Conservative party, that it is wrong for political parties to receive such donations. That is strange and anomalous, and there is only one reason why it is the case. It is another sop to Sinn Fein and another piece of appeasement. It reflects a strand that runs through both Bills.

Mr. George Howarth: I should like to correct the impression given by the right hon. Gentleman. I consulted all the political parties in Northern Ireland about the provision. Every one of them asked for it, as they were

afraid that retaliation would occur if they had to publish the sources of donations. Let me set the record straight. It may surprise the right hon. Gentleman—as, indeed, it surprised me at the time—that the one party that opposed the measure was Sinn Fein.

Mr. MacKay: As usual, the Under-Secretary is charming but wrong. The issue on which we agree and on which he tried to organise a little smokescreen just now is security. The only respect in which Northern Ireland political parties should be treated slightly differently from parties elsewhere in the United Kingdom is in respect of allowing them not to publish the names of major donors, for simple security reasons. That is widely accepted.

Mr. Howarth: indicated assent.

Mr. MacKay: I am pleased to see the Under-Secretary nodding. However, it is not correct to suggest that Northern Ireland parties should be treated differently from parties representing the rest of the United Kingdom in respect of collecting money from abroad. If the Under-Secretary gained the support of all political parties in his consultations, something has since gone badly wrong or he misunderstood his conversations.
The amendments tabled my myself and the right hon. Member for Upper Bann have the full support of Unionist Members. They are intended to ensure, among other things, that overseas donations are not received by Northern Ireland political parties. Allowing that practice has only one benefit, of which we are all aware: to ensure that the money flows into the IRA from the Americans and, to a lesser extent, to the minor loyalist paramilitary parties, which fish in the same murky pond on the eastern seaboard of the United States.

Mr. David Trimble: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that, in respect of consultation with Northern Ireland parties on the wholly anomalous arrangements that allow them to receive foreign donations, my party vigorously and consistently opposed the exemption during consultation. It is misleading of the Under-Secretary to suggest otherwise.

Mr. MacKay: I am grateful to Northern Ireland's First Minister, the right hon. Member for Upper Bann. If the right hon. Gentleman had not been in his place, but on duty in the Province as First Minister, the Under-Secretary would have been allowed to mislead the House. It is good news that the right hon. Gentleman is present to put the record straight and to confirm my remarks.

Mr. Robert McCartney: I, too, endorse everything said by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), and I think I can state with confidence that the same position would be held by members of the Democratic Unionist party, who are not present.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the terms that have crept into these exchanges are unfortunate, and perhaps had better not be repeated.

Mr. MacKay: On a lighter note, I was about to say—anticipating you, Mr. Deputy Speaker—that I suppose we should congratulate the Minister on at least uniting,


unusually, all three Unionist parties represented in the House. That does not happen as often as some of us would like.
I think that we have clarified the position. We have heard from two of the three Unionist parties, and I am fairly confident that the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) is able to speak for the DUP on this matter.

Mr. Howarth: I can say that the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney), and probably, as he and the right hon. Gentleman have said, the DUP, were—in common with Sinn Fein—opposed to the provisions. But I think the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) will be aware that the late Josias Cunningham of the Ulster Unionist Council said in evidence:
Taking the American example again, we have several well-heeled sympathisers. It would be very embarrassing if one of them said, "I would like to support your election campaign or party machine generally. Here is a cheque for $10,000." And we had to say, "Sorry. We're are not allowed to accept it".
That is the evidence that we received from the right hon. Gentleman's party.

Mr. MacKay: I suspect that there was far more evidence than the evidence of a man who, having died tragically in a car accident, cannot answer the Minister.
I do not want to be led further down this road, but I think it would be fair to say that others will be able to judge whether they believe the First Minister of Northern Ireland or the Minister's recollections. I maintain, and will maintain again if I catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and if we reach the amendments concerned—I think we will, because they are quite high on the selection list—that this is another sop to Sinn Fein. It allows Sinn Fein to get money from America and elsewhere, and it does the same for loyalist paramilitary groups. That, I believe, is entirely wrong.
We should consider more than one aspect of the dirty money—for it is dirty money—that comes from America to republican and so-called loyalist parties. It would be bad enough if the money were just for their own election purposes, and related to political propaganda in Northern Ireland; but, worse still, it will involve referendums affecting the whole United Kingdom.
Through Northern Ireland, there is a huge loophole. If we had a referendum on, for instance, the single currency—the Prime Minister has promised one for the next Parliament —it would be possible to channel huge sums from Northern Ireland into a campaign on one side of the argument. That must be wrong. Equally, in the event of a border poll on the future of Northern Ireland—and there will always be such polls from time to time—huge sums could come in from the Republic and America to support one side of that argument. That is entirely against what Neill advocated.
This is a shabby, bad, nasty little motion, which is out of character for the Home Secretary. He should be thoroughly ashamed of it, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: I wonder whether my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) would forgive me for perhaps

disagreeing with her for a moment. She said that some aspects of the debate were fruitless. There is one fruitful aspect. It gives us the opportunity to expose fully the record of the Tories on guillotines and, in particular, the role played by the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay).
Some of us might recall that the right hon. Gentleman was an effective Whip under the previous Conservative Administration. In his speech today, he spent a long time weaving a tangled web of rhetoric in an attempt to disguise his own record, which is formidable, so again, as I did a couple of days ago, and for the public record, I take the opportunity to set out the record of the Tories and, in particular, the right hon. Gentleman.
As background, may I mention what the right hon. Gentleman's role was? In 1992, he was appointed to the Whips Office as a Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury. In 1993–95, he was Vice Chamberlain of Her Majesty's Household. In 1995–96, he was Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household. For five long years, he worked in the Whips Office, supporting, promoting and cajoling hon. Members to come into the Division Lobby and to vote in favour of guillotines. He is Mr. Robespierre personified. He is the man who, under the previous Government, was more responsible than anyone else for forcing guillotine motions through the House of Commons.
Let us consider some of the Bills that the right hon. Gentleman guillotined. The Education (Schools) Bill, the Further and Higher Education Bill, the Local Government Bill, the Local Government Finance Bill, the Finance Bill, the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill, the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill—all were guillotined by the right hon. Gentleman. It was his task in the Government.

Mr. MacKay: I am immensely flattered and I did not pay the hon. Gentleman, but, as he has some records in front of him, will he confirm that every time that I was involved in a guillotines—I am not against guillotines; I never said that I was during my speech—there was extensive discussion in the House and what some would call a filibuster? The Home Secretary likes to use that word. The hon. Gentleman will find that it never happened in the final week of a Session that was running into December and that the overwhelming majority of the guillotines were introduced when there had been extensive discussion already.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: It is not quite as the right hon. Gentleman says. I am referring to the period when Labour had taken a tactical decision to co-operate with the Conservative Government to ensure that legislation went through its stages in the House of Commons without filibuster. Even in those circumstances, the right hon. Gentleman was responsible—[Interruption.] He would do well to look at the record to see when the great body of guillotine motions took place on Bills. Most were prior to the 1992 Parliament.

Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I want to proceed a little. Let me finish the list because we are coming to an interesting Bill.
The next Bill on my list is the Railways Bill. What an interesting Bill the right hon. Gentleman guillotined. Does he remember it? Does he recall what it did? It privatised
British Rail and that led to the total collapse of the national network. The right hon. Gentleman was the villain of the piece. He was responsible for introducing the guillotine. That was his task, which he was paid to carry out—he was paid about £30,000 a year on top of his parliamentary salary to ensure that those Bills were guillotined in the House of Commons. I would say that there was an element of hypocrisy about these matters, but I cannot say that because it is not a parliamentary term.
Other guillotined legislation included the Statutory Sick Pay Bill, which we all remember as very significant legislation; the Non-Domestic Rating Bill; the 1994 Finance Bill—

Mrs. Anne Campbell: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I certainly shall when I have finished my list.
The list includes the Family Law Bill [Lords]. It also includes the Prevention of Terrorism (Additional Powers) Bill. Does that legislation deal with matters in Northern Ireland? Of course it does.

Mr. MacKay: rose—

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I presume that, when the right hon. Gentleman gets to his feet, he will say, "Yes, I guillotined that legislation which relates to Northern Ireland."

Mr. MacKay: Yes, I guillotined that legislation which relates to Northern Ireland, but that guillotine simply reminds the House how soft on terrorism the Labour Opposition were. That is why a guillotine was necessary. Labour Members often deny that they were soft and say that there was a bipartisan policy on Northern Ireland, but I have always maintained that they were soft on terrorism. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding us of that.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Robespierre always had excuses and sought to justify his actions. Robespierre is a wonderful name for the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Bercow: Although the hon. Gentleman is certainly a diligent researcher—I am full of admiration for his anorakish attention to the historical record—is he aware that several hon. Members in the Chamber are parliamentary virgins and, therefore, not remotely interested in—or could not give a tinker's cuss about-the record of alleged misdeeds of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay)? What we want instead from the cynical, world-weary hon. Gentleman is a principled defence of the parliamentary barbarity of what the Government themselves are proposing today.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: At the very beginning of my speech, I said that all I wanted to do was to draw attention to the former Government's record. That is my role today. The hon. Gentleman may not be interested in that, but many members of the public are very interested in it.

Mr. Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his excursion into the record of the committee of public safety

that used to operate under the previous Government. I simply want to say—being as generous as I can—that the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) erred in his recollection when he claimed that the previous Government had never guillotined Bills at the end of a Session—

Mr. MacKay: I said rarely.

Mr. Straw: I do not know whether three times in a week is "rarely", but that is exactly what happened in November 1989, just as we were nearing the end of the Session. The Local Government and Housing Bill, the Employment Bill and the Self-Governing Schools etc. (Scotland) Bill were all guillotined within the space of six days.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: The right hon. Member for Bracknell might recall that the Firearms (Amendment) Bill also was guillotined. Did not that legislation have implications for Northern Ireland?

Mr. MacKay: No.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Perhaps I am wrong. The interesting thing about that Bill is that various Home Office Ministers voted in support of the guillotine.
In the next day, a parliamentary question that I tabled will be answered. I draw attention to it because it will help students of Parliament who wonder what debates on guillotines are all about to understand the background. I understand that, in reply to my question, a right hon. Friend has set out in detail—

Mr. Forth: Did they?

Mr. Campbell-Savours: A parliamentary question has been asked.

Mr. Forth: How does the hon. Gentleman know the answer?

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Because the information is available. Additionally, as this Government always answer questions and do not hide behind claims of unreasonable cost, I presume that the answer that I receive will be comprehensive. If it is what I expect, it will set out in detail all the legislation that has been guillotined since 1979. If the answer is available tomorrow, hon. Members may wish to carry it with them, as it would help them in their debates.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said that there are 666 amendments, to one of which we objected. In other words, the Government support the great majority of amendments passed in the Lords. It seems to me that that is the Lords working at its best. If the Lords can accommodate that volume of business on consequential amendments that are inconsequential in nature and would not be treated as controversial in the Commons, thereby saving the Commons time, the Lords will have helped the legislative process.

Mr. Grieve: In the Lords, the Bill occupied five days in Committee and three or four on Report. Does the


hon. Gentleman think that the House should simply rubber-stamp the amendments that were made there?

Mr. Campbell-Savours: If it had not been for the efforts in the past 12 months of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), we would have been able to find more time to discuss these matters. Although I understand why he and his colleagues do such things, in the past few years, they have repeatedly delayed legislation. It seems inevitable that, at the end of the Session, we are coming up against the buffers.

Mr. Hogg: Does the hon. Gentleman understand what he is saying? He is saying that primary legislation should be made in the unelected House, notwithstanding the fact that it relates to Parliament, the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill and will not be discussed in this place. Surely that must be a travesty of good sense, even to him.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I cannot believe that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is suggesting that we are going to debate 666 amendments today. When the previous, Conservative Government were in office and hundreds of amendments were tabled, they were never all discussed on the Floor of the House. The justification given by Ministers in that Government was that the amendments had been dealt with in the Lords and were not controversial. I cannot see how the argument could have changed since then.

Mr. Forth: Surely the hon. Gentleman is not saying either that I, singlehandedly, can shape the entire legislative Session, much as I would like to be able to do so, or that — certainly since the House returned late from a three-month summer recess dictated by the Government—we have not had ample time, had the Government managed their business properly, to consider these matters in very great detail. What about all the non-sitting Fridays and all the evenings when everyone bunked off early? What about all the other occasions when the House could have considered these matters? The Government have controlled the timetable. It was not me.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: The right hon. Gentleman talks about non-sitting Fridays. It is all right for him, because his constituency is about 20 miles down the road, in Bromley. My constituency is 319 miles from London. It now takes me 11 hours to get home. The reality is that we have very limited time to discuss legislation on the Floor of the House.

Mr. David Winnick: Has not the summer recess always been from July to late October? Moreover, does my hon. Friend remember that, in 1992, we rose for the summer recess on 15 July, two weeks earlier than usual, but returned at the usual time in October?

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I do not really want to go down this route. If we compare one year against another over the years, the recesses broadly average out. It is legitimate to argue that we could sit on Fridays, but the fact is that, when it takes many hon. Members 10, 11 or

12 hours to get to and from London, we have to go home earlier in the week. We have to do that because of travel difficulties.

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I think that the hon. Gentleman has said that none of the amendments, bar one, is controversial. I ask him to read Lords amendment No. 1, which the Government support. He says that we are talking about a non-controversial amendment. However, it reads:
A person may not be appointed as an Electoral Commissioner if he…is a member of a registered party
or if he is
an officer or employee of a registered party
or has held an office
within the last ten years.
According to that amendment, a person could be appointed as an electoral commissioner if he tore up his membership card the week before. Surely that is controversial.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I can only say to the hon. Gentleman that I hope that he catches the Deputy Speaker's eye.

6 pm

Mr. Paul Tyler: I note that the Secretary of State and the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman, the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay), took a full hour to deploy their arguments, when we have only three hours to debate the motion.

Mr. MacKay: There were a lot of interventions.

Mr. Tyler: I acknowledge that there were some interventions. However, I hope to do rather better.
The debate shows clearly that the pantomime season has started already. We have had a lot of, "Oh yes you did" and "Oh no we didn't". The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) is clearly rehearsing for the role of Buttons. Others may have other views about who is to take which role. It is clear that we are having a repeat performance of Monday evening's debate. Rather than repeat everything that I said then—others have repeated what they said—I shall refer the House to columns 676 to 678.
My fears were entirely justified on Monday evening. A guillotine is a blunt instrument. I am depressed to find that the Home Secretary—I am glad that he is still on the Treasury Bench—seems not to understand the difference between so-called programme motions and a guillotine. A programme motion allows us to have Divisions at particular stages of a debate. Such motions provide an opportunity for hon. Members on both sides of the House who have points to make to express their views and to vote. The problem with a guillotine is that we go right through the evening until everything falls, whether it is important or unimportant.
There was a classic example on Monday night. We spent three hours debating why there was too little time to debate amendments. I am sure that it would be wrong to suggest that there was waffle, because the Chair would
have called Members to account, but there were some prolix contributions. There was much elaboration and repetition.
When it came to the vote on the guillotine, which we were told was so important and critical to the future of democracy, what did we find? Extraordinarily few Conservative Members remained to vote. In the words of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), they bunked off.

Mr. Forth: Disgraceful.

Mr. Tyler: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for making that contribution to my speech.
When we moved on to a debate on the substance of the Freedom of Information Bill, which Conservative Members were saying was of critical importance and we needed more time to debate, how many Conservative Members came into the Lobby in support of the Liberal Democrat amendment? The answer is one. That was even more disgraceful. It was the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) who joined us. I am sorry that he is not in his place this evening. He would have contributed a well rehearsed speech to the debate. However, he did that on Monday, and I think that we can take it as read that had he spoken this evening he would have made a similar contribution. He stuck to his principles and he voted. I think that there were seven other Members from other parties who supported us, along with Labour Members.

Mr. Forth: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting a new parliamentary principle? Is he saying that he will measure our assiduity in respect of parliamentary duties on the basis of whether we support Liberal Democrat amendments? That strikes me as a new principle. Does the hon. Gentleman really mean what he is saying?

Mr. Tyler: The right hon. Gentleman is most helpful on these occasions. I have now found the figures. I am able to report that five Members of other parties supported us, with 12 Labour Members and one Conservative.

Mr. Forth: So what?

Mr. Tyler: I am saying that we debated the amendment at great length, and the right hon. Gentleman will recall that it was an important one. When it came to a Division, what happened? In the right hon. Gentleman's words, his colleagues bunked off.
That is what happens during a guillotine debate. There is not a carefully rehearsed and orchestrated opportunity to debate the issues that the House wants to debate and to divide on them. Instead, Members waffle. We have now a real choice between that sort of blunt instrument and a much more precise instrument. Hon. Members on both sides of the House are present who are also members of the Modernisation Committee, and by consensus we developed the idea that it was for the Opposition to say what issues they wanted to debate and to divide upon. That provides opportunities for Members on both sides of the House, including Labour rebels.
It will be within the recall of hon. Members now in their places that when we debated the Transport Bill on Report, it was decided that it would be important for certain Members to speak on particular issues. They did so and there were Divisions. When there is a guillotine, the Government too have it in their hands to waffle, filibuster or delay.

Mr. Hogg: Obviously there is some force in what the hon. Gentleman is saying about programme motions. I hope that he will recognise that Back Benchers may not share the same view as Front Benchers in terms of what is important. If a programme motion is to be determined by Front Benchers—the hon. Gentleman is the Liberal Democrat Chief Whip, and therefore has an interest in arguing this point of view—other Members who have a different set of priorities may not have their views properly reflected.

Mr. Tyler: That is an important point. I acknowledge that the programme motion does not always work as perfectly as it should. However, on the occasion to which I referred, I received representations from both Labour and Conservative Back Benchers, as I am sure the Opposition Front Bench did. We made provision for those concerned. That cannot be done in a guillotined debate. However, in a programme motion, account can be taken of representations. As I have said, we managed to do that most successfully. I suggest that more often than not we should be seeking to adopt that approach.
On tonight's vote, on last night's vote and on Monday night's vote the business was set by the Government without consulting either of the Opposition parties. There was no opportunity for us to make representations about where decisions should be taken and at what point Members would want to have a proper debate on certain issues. The Government stand accused, as I said on Monday night, of hypocrisy in saying that they had no alternative but to introduce a guillotine motion. They had a much better alternative, and one that is accepted by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House as most effective.
It is not for me to give the Government advice on parliamentary tactics. However, would it not have been better to say, "We offered you the opportunity to debate the issues that you felt important and to have Divisions on them"? That would have put the Conservatives in some difficulty. There is a major division between the leadership of the Front Bench and the leadership on the Back Benches.

Mr. Grieve: Would the hon. Gentleman care to comment on the time that he thinks would be necessary to consider 666 Lords amendments and the Opposition amendments? I suggest that, far from there being any division, if a sensible time had been programmed, which would still have allowed the state opening of Parliament to take place next week, we would have put through the business having done a proper job.

Mr. Tyler: The hon. Gentleman comes to the point that I was about to make. I will not be betraying any secrets, but I am sure that in the specific circumstances of this week the Liberal Democrats would have been prepared to sit later if we knew that there would be adequate time for the particular issues that we wanted to debate and divide


upon. That would have been true on Monday night, and certainly true last night, when there was consensus on many of the issues.
It is to be remarked upon that if there is a guillotine, we hand to the small minority the opportunity to filibuster on a particular interest to prevent other issues coming forward. The classic case was that of the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), and I am sorry that he is not in his place. With his extensive experience of Wales, he managed to entertain the House for a long time, to prevent a discussion starting on freedom of information in relation to his erstwhile Department. Since the BSE report, it has been categorised as a seedbed of secrecy and deliberate obfuscation. In such instances the guillotine plays into the hands of small minorities on either side of the House. It enables them to prevent the House from debating issues that are of importance.

Mr. Bercow: The hon. Gentleman has just attacked and impugned the integrity of my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), and he is entirely unjustified in doing so. Had we been able to get on to discuss the formulation of Government policy and the availability or non-availability of the facts leading to decisions, my right hon. Friend would have been able to demonstrate that the way the Government intend to proceed would suppress the release of relevant facts. My right hon. Friend devoted considerable attention to amendments relating to Wales and Northern Ireland because the Government's clauses on those subjects were woefully badly drafted—a point that he demonstrated effectively in his speech.

Mr. Tyler: The hon. Gentleman is being rather more prolix than he normally is—he is usually very succinct. I am afraid that he has missed the point of my contribution. What I was saying was that, if there were only a limited time in which to discuss certain issues, a practised parliamentarian such as the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal would make his own contribution that much more succinct to fit the case; and he could, in speaking to an amendment, have gone on to defend his former Ministry against accusations of secrecy.
A programme motion will always be a more effective way for the Opposition as well as the Government to ensure that we debate the issues that need to be debated. That is why I think that the Government have missed a trick. Not only have they shown themselves to be hypocritical on the issue of the business motion that they put before the House, but they could also have wrong-footed the Opposition. If the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties had not been able to sign up to a programme motion, the Government would have been in a stronger moral position. As it is, they are not in a strong moral position tonight. All that they can do is pretend that their sin is somehow redeemed because their predecessors were equally wicked. I have never been able to accept that.
I shall turn briefly to the nature of the two Bills whose timetable motion we are discussing. As has already been said, it is extraordinary that they were both introduced comparatively early in the parliamentary year, as though they were very urgent. Then everything seemed to go

quiet for an amazing length of time. It has not yet been mentioned, but the Government waited until October to bring them into Committee in the House of Lords.

Mr. MacKay: I just mentioned that.

Mr. Tyler: The right hon. Gentleman should wait a minute. He is not hanging on my every word, but he should do so.
The significance of the Government's action is that, this year, the other place came back in September. The House of Lords had plenty of time to make real progress and then send the Bills back to us in October or early November. That is what is so extraordinary.
The rationale for the so-called Disqualifications Bill has never been fully explained. However, the Bill was said at the outset to be urgent. The urgency argument has completely dissipated as each month has gone by. I cannot understand how the Government can pretend that it is still necessary to make progress at such speed today.
As I said earlier, the debate has all the elements of a well rehearsed pantomime. I regret that, and I hope that we shall shortly get on to the business that we are here to debate —the Bills. I hope that, in the new Session, which—all being well—will start next week, we shall all be able to learn a better way of dealing with our business.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: I do not intend to detain the House for long, but I felt that it was important to express my frustration at the synthetic indignation that has been voiced this evening.
Many people must feel frustration that we are spending time debating the guillotine rather than the Bill. I certainly felt frustration on Monday night, when we debated the guillotine on the Freedom of Information Bill. I had an important point about the Bill that I wanted to put to the Minister—I think that it related to amendment No. 22—about information concerning a tribunal brought under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. The point had been raised with me by one of my constituents. Unfortunately, the amendment was in the third group of amendments, which we did not reach because of the discussions on technicalities on the other side of the House.

Mr. Swayne: Does not the hon. Lady realise that the remedy was in her own hands, in that she could have voted against the guillotine motion? I hope that she will learn from having made such a mistake on Monday.

Mrs. Campbell: Had I, and a sufficient number of other Labour Members, voted against the guillotine motion, we should have lost an excellent Bill because there would not have been time to debate it. Of course, that is the whole point of being in opposition. I have been in the hon. Gentleman's place myself, and I know that those are the kind of tricks that the Opposition play. I am not completely naive about these matters.

Mr. Wilshire: If I understand the hon. Lady correctly, she is suggesting that the three-hour limit for the guillotine motion is something to which she objects. However, the decision to allocate three hours to this guillotine—and to the guillotine yesterday—was taken by


Government Front-Bench Members, not by us. If the hon. Lady thinks that wrong, how long would she allow—a minute, or two? Or would she prefer a rubber stamp?

Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): Order. The point that the hon. Gentleman is making is covered by the Standing Orders.

Mrs. Campbell: I am grateful to you for that intervention, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The debate on the guillotine motion is timetabled for up to three hours, according to the Standing Orders, as Madam Deputy Speaker has helpfully reminded us. That will change after 6 December, when we adopt the new Standing Orders and, sensibly, everything will be programmed.

Mr. Grieve: Given the number of amendments and the amount of time available even without any discussion of the guillotine, does the hon. Lady consider that there is sufficient time to discuss the amount of new material that has come back from the other place? We have seven hours in which to discuss 666 amendments.

Mrs. Campbell: I have been in the Chamber since the beginning of the debate and I have listened carefully to the arguments that have been put forward. Opposition Members should say how many of those 666 amendments they consider controversial, and why we are not being given an opportunity—as we shall be under the new Standing Orders—to debate those controversial amendments and decide how much time will be allocated to each.

Mr. Hogg: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Campbell: No, I want to make some progress.
I brought up the example of the Freedom of Information Bill because I wanted to express my frustration at not being given the opportunity by the Opposition to make the point that I wished to make to the Minister on the Floor of the House. An Opposition who do not allow Government Back Benchers to make points to their own Ministers are incompetent, and the waffle that comes from that side of the House is, frankly, disgraceful.
I first came across a guillotine motion in, I think, December 1992. I was a member of the Standing Committee considering the Education Bill and I was disappointed that the then Government decided to curtail discussion and to impose a guillotine. The following year, right at the end of the parliamentary Session—despite what the Opposition spokesman said earlier—discussion of the Railways Bill was curtailed on 2 November, and on 3 November the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill was guillotined.
Bills were being curtailed, and not just at the end of the parliamentary Session. Almost immediately after the opening of the new Session, a guillotine was imposed, on 14 December 1993, on not one Bill, but two—the Statutory Sick Pay Bill and the Social Security (Contributions) Bill. That was a period in which we, as an Opposition, were co-operating with the Government. There was no necessity to curtail discussion on those two

Bills at that stage in the parliamentary Session. The fact that guillotines were imposed demonstrates the hypocrisy on the part of Opposition Members tonight.
I think that I speak for many of my colleagues on this side of the House when I say how much we are looking forward to the new Session of Parliament, which will begin on 6 December, when programming will become the norm instead of ridiculous performances such as the one that we are witnessing this evening.

Sir George Young: I propose to make the briefest speech so far in this debate. I begin by agreeing with part of what the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) said, in that the guillotine is the least satisfactory of all options. A more satisfactory one—if it can be secured—is an agreed programme motion that provides adequate time, to which I have often put my name when I believe that to be in the interests of proper discussion. The difficulty is that we can get an agreed programme motion only if the Government are prepared to offer adequate time. Given the scale of the amendments confronting the House this afternoon, I very much doubt whether the Government would have been able to open Parliament next week if they were first to concede the amount of time which, in my judgment, is necessary to deal with the Bills that are under discussion this week.

Mr. Hogg: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Sir George Young: Yes, but it will the only time, otherwise I will break my undertaking.

Mr. Hogg: I have already made the point to the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) that I have sympathy with the consensual timetable programme motion, but only on the basis that it is amendable. Many right hon. and hon. Members believe that those on the Front Benches did not actively reflect the identification of priorities. If we are to have programme motions, they must be amendable so that Back Benchers can seek to vary the allocated times.

Sir George Young: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend. I do not think that he disputes my point that the least satisfactory option is the guillotine. A better option is the agreed programme, and then we can have a discussion about how to reach it.
Just over a year ago, when I wound up the debate on the Loyal Address, I said that the Government's programme was ambitious. I also said:
For many of us, the shambles of the fag-end of the previous Session is still fresh in our memory—four guillotines in the last 10 days of the previous Session, and 820 amendments to the Greater London Authority Bill. However, far from learning the lessons of the end of the previous Session, the Government seem determined to repeat and amplify their mistakes.
So indeed has this turned out to be. My warnings at that time were brushed aside by the Leader of the House, who explained that the Government were
modernising and reforming the legislative process.—[Official Report, 24 November 2000; Vol. 339, c. 709-10.]
The right hon. Lady went on to reassure the House that the development of how the Government were handling the House's work should also produce better legislation. I do not think that that hope has been achieved.
We end this Session, as we ended the previous one, with an unseemly rush of inadequate opportunities to consider important legislation. The Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill was dealt with expeditiously and amicably in this House. The Minister was kind enough to compliment Opposition Members on the way in which they conducted themselves. Third Reading was on 14 March. Second Reading in another place was on 3 April. The Bill then disappeared into a legislative Bermuda triangle, the map for which is jealously guarded by Sir Murdo Maclean. The Bill was glimpsed briefly between the clouds on 11 May. It then disappeared entirely until 10 September, when it reappeared, running dangerously low on fuel, in another place.
This is an almost unprecedented disruption in the legislative process. It was rather elegantly explained away by a Minister in another place who said:
we have had an unfortunate break in the thread of continuity…But that has enabled us to have time to pause for reflection.— [Official Report, House of Lords, 10 October 2000; Vol. 617, c. 183.]
The reflection has altered and substantially increased the Bill, which is now stacked, along with eight others, over the House of Commons, awaiting a landing slot.
This is a serious Bill. It sets the framework within which the democratic process takes place. It is a constitutional Bill; it influences how elections are conducted and referendums held. I caution the Home Secretary and other Ministers against over-use of the "listening Government" phrase. We have heard rather a lot of that this week. They may be a listening Government, but they are also rather careless. These Bills have not been well drafted, and that has been part of the trouble.
The Home Secretary says that the Government have not brought in very many Bills. He is able to say that only because, in one case, three Bills have been put into one. The Transport Bill is actually three Bills—it deals with the National Air Traffic Services, the Strategic Rail Authority and charging. This Bill is also more than one Bill—it is the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill. So I urge caution about over-use of the argument about the number of Bills.
I spoke in yesterday's guillotined debate on the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill. Everybody spoke in a disciplined way—they stuck to the footpath and there was very little rambling. None the less, we could not do justice to all the amendments and the Bill was not fully considered. Exactly the same thing will happen to night.
The Disqualifications Bill also had a very unusual passage. Third Reading was on 25 January. Indeed, it was so important that the House sat all through the night. On 26 January, the Bill had its First Reading in another place and then disappeared off the radar until 27 July. It has now been amended substantially and this House is invited to accept that a Bill which the Government did not seem to mind about for six months now has to be rushed through in two days.
This is no way to manage a legislative programme; it is no way to treat Parliament and it is no way to scrutinise Bills. For those reasons, I will have no hesitation in voting against the guillotine.

Mr. David Trimble: I shall also try to be brief. As other Members will know, our party is generally against guillotines in any form, particularly in the case of this legislation, as it may deprive us of the opportunity of debating some measures that apply uniquely to Northern Ireland. That is the point on which I wish to make a few comments.
Earlier in our proceedings, I intervened on the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) and said that the concept of treating Northern Ireland separately from the rest of the United Kingdom with regard to foreign donations had been consistently opposed by our party. Shortly after that, the Under-Secretary of State for the Northern Ireland Office intervened to quote a passage of evidence given by the late Sir Josias Cunningham, who was at that time president of our party, which implied a willingness to accept foreign donations.
I wish to place this matter in context because I believe that the Minister has misled the House in this respect. The words that he quoted were said, but they were said on 17 June 1998, in evidence to the Committee. In the course of giving that evidence, Sir Josias also said that we would want a uniform system applied. If it were applied in the United Kingdom generally, we should not be omitted. On the point that I was making—that we objected and continue to object to Northern Ireland being treated separately on this matter—the evidence given on that date was quite clear. The comments that Sir Josias made on that occasion were in discussing foreign donations in general. They predated the recommendations in the report, because they were evidence given beforehand. Subsequently, the report was made recommending a ban on foreign donations. We have made it clear that we are quite happy to accept that. However, we have also made it clear, right through this matter, that when the Government brought forward proposals to treat Northern Ireland separately, we objected to them.
May I quote to the Minister from the letter that was sent to the party funding unit at the Home Office by the general secretary of the Ulster Unionist council, Mr. David Boyd, dated 13 October 1999? He said:
We are disappointed that the proposals for restrictions on donations from overseas differ in Northern Ireland from Great Britain. This is the one area in which legislation for Northern Ireland should be at least as strong as that in Great Britain.
He went on to reinforce that point.
I make it clear, and I hope that the Minister will accept, that we have opposed the separate treatment of Northern Ireland. To suggest, as he did, that we indicated a willingness to be treated separately is not accurate. I reinforce the point by saying that the sentence that he quoted was quoted in another place on 10 October and the misleading impression was thereupon immediately corrected in another place. I am amazed that the Minister proceeds to quote the matter in a misleading manner, even though the error—if error it be—had already been corrected.

Mr. George Howarth: If I have in any way misrepresented the position that the right hon. Gentleman's party took on this matter, of course I apologise. I will need to check the record, but my recollection is that there were, subsequent to the events that he describes, further meetings at which a different
point of view made on behalf of his party was put. If I am wrong about that, and I cannot locate the notes quickly to verify my version of events, I will of course put the record straight.

Mr. Trimble: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has behaved honourably in this matter. If anything said subsequent to the publication of the Government White Paper indicated a willingness to treat Northern Ireland separately, that does not represent my views, because they are absolutely clear and have been expressed in our discussions with the Government.
We shall be happy to read the record on the matter, however. I am grateful to have had the opportunity of setting out the matter more fully so soon after statements were made that I consider misleading. I do not want to detain the House longer at this point.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I regret both that this is the second timetable motion before the House this week and that it is the second time that I have spoken on such a motion. We should not be doing this. We are guillotining four major Bills this week. The Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill and Disqualifications Bill are measures of real substance.
We are being asked to consider the deletion of new clause 1 of the Disqualifications Bill. That provision is at the heart of the Bill, and to try to deal with the matter in three hours is plain wrong. On the PPER Bill, there are 666 amendments—as has been constantly pointed out. I gather from the Home Secretary that 665 of those amendments were either tabled by the Government or had their approval. The Government are presenting the House with 665 Government-inspired or supported amendments that we shall have to consider for the very first time in between only three or four hours. That is absurd.
Labour Members have argued that many of those amendments are non-controversial or have been tabled in respect of undertakings. That may well be true; I do not challenge the bona fides of hon. Members. However, we need to bear in mind two points: when one considers an amendment, one examines its inherent merits and also the language in which it is encapsulated. Hon. Members may say that an amendment is not controversial, but that does not resolve the problem. The policy content of the amendment may not be controversial, but what about its language? We are in the business of—where we can—trying to improve legislation and trying to avoid nonsense. It is thus extremely important—even in respect of uncontroversial measures—that the House should have an opportunity to scrutinise statutory language.

Mr. Forth: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, as at least 500 Members of the House are not part of the Government, it would be difficult to state with certainty whether any measure—big or small—is a priori non-controversial? We are all politicians and we all hold different points of view. Is it not at least likely that someone — somewhere—may regard something as controversial, and that to prejudge that issue is a denial of the parliamentary process?

Mr. Hogg: I agree with my right hon. Friend and in a moment I shall touch briefly on the point he makes.
I was saying that, even if an amendment is genuinely uncontroversial as to its content, we are still in the business of trying to improve statutory language so that we do not send out legislation that is rubbish or imperfect.
I point out to the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Tyler) and to my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), the former shadow Leader of the House, that I am not wholly opposed to programme motions; I understand the force of them. However, there are certain conditions. First, we should have some agreement as to the overall volume of legislation with which we shall be dealing in any one Session. Secondly, we must ensure that, within the programme, there is sufficient time to address the relevant Bill.
To amplify the point that I made earlier to my right hon. Friend and to the hon. Gentleman, let me say that an agreement between Front-Bench Members as to the key parts of a Bill does not necessarily reflect the views of, for example, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) or indeed myself.

Mr. Tyler: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hogg: I will give way when I have finished my point.
The danger of consensual agreements between the Front Benches is that the programming will not take into account the views of heavily engaged Back Benchers, who may take a wholly different view of what is important. That is why such a motion has to be amendable, so that people such as my right hon. Friend can argue that we need more time for discussion of one group of amendments and less for another, and we can then divide on the matter. I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Tyler: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. As I know that he is especially punctilious about the names of constituencies—with good reason—I point out that my constituency is North Cornwall.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman makes a valid point. I agree that a programme motion may not always meet the case and accept the points he makes on Back-Bench opinion. That is especially true for the PPER Bill; we may not all be experts on agriculture or foreign affairs, but we are all experts on the political process, so the views of Back Benchers have a unique relevance in discussion of the Bill. I agree that a programme motion might have been difficult to construct and that it may well have been necessary to make it amendable, but it would still have been a much better option than a guillotine motion.

Mr. Hogg: I see the merit in what the hon. Gentleman says; I have nothing to add to my remarks on that point. However, I have one or two further points on the guillotine motion.
I acknowledge that I have already spoken on the matter this week. Hon. Members may ask rhetorically—or may even ask me—why I am making the speech again. The reason is that, if this motion is bad in principle, we should not acquiesce in it. If that means repeating oneself, so that


one is not seen to acquiesce, then so be it. The principle is bad and I shall explain why, but I think that the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) wants to intervene.

Mr. Martin Bell: indicated dissent.

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman does not want to intervene; I apologise.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I do.

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman can always be relied on.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will think extremely carefully about his response to my question. In his 20 years in this place, has he ever voted for a guillotine motion on Lords amendments when there were more than 500 amendments?

Mr. Hogg: I cannot answer the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question: I do not know offhand. However, when I was a Minister—and indeed, when I was not a Minister, but we were in government—I supported many timetable motions. As a Minister, I was bound by collective responsibility. That is not a laughing matter—one does not resign over silly matters. I trust that one resigns only over major matters. With all respect to the hon. Gentleman, a guillotine motion does not fall into the spectrum of matters on which one resigns—they need to be more substantial than that.

Mr. Salmond: Did the right hon. and learned Gentleman consider resignation over the many serious matters that he was involved in mucking up?

Mr. Hogg: There certainly were times when I considered resignation—and indeed on serious matters. I went a long way down that road. I should certainly have resigned had I not been asked to stay on.

Mr. Salmond: Tell us more.

Mr. Hogg: I shall not continue this dialogue because it will be out of order. However, I was never someone—for example, when I was the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—to hold on needlessly.
The point that I was making in response to the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) is that, when one is a member of a Government, one accepts collective responsibility. Yes, I certainly voted for timetable motions—and may even have moved them from time to time. When I was a Government Whip, I certainly bullied my colleagues to support such motions. Incidentally, I had no greater respect for them when they agreed to be bullied than I would otherwise have had, because I want independent-minded people in this place. I shall return to that point, but I hope that I have fully and adequately dealt with the hon. Gentleman's question.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: The right hon. and learned Gentleman refers specifically to timetable motions. I was talking about timetable motions that involve hundreds—indeed 500 or more—of Lords amendments.

Mr. Hogg: I answered the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: No, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has not answered me. If he is opposed in principle, he would say that it had never happened at all.

Mr. Hogg: I answered the hon. Gentleman's question, which was a perfectly fair one to ask. I simply do not remember; how am I supposed to remember whether I supported a particular timetable motion during 18 years? I have not a clue, but were it on the agenda and were I in the House, I am sure that I would have done so, for the reasons that I have given. However, that does not mean that it is right to agree to such a motion, and I shall explain the reasons why I think it wrong to do so.
The first reason, which is important, is that democracy is a fairly fragile institution; we are calling on people to accept law and policy with which they may well not agree. An essential element of the bargain that people make in a political commonwealth is that policy and legislation is scrutinised and considered by their elected representatives. If we strip out the essential process of scrutiny, discussion and consideration, we also strip out the foundation on which the acceptance of law rests, and the electorate will begin to realise that the policies and laws imposed on them are but the will of one party. That cannot be right.

Mr. Robert McCartney: Is it correct to say that the essence of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument is that, if we impose guillotine measures in circumstances in which there is no fundamental consensus, we substitute elective despotism for democracy?

Mr. Hogg: I would indeed say that. I ventured to make that point on Monday in response to a point made by the hon. Member for Workington. In fact, that phrase was used by my right hon. and noble father, who gave a long lecture on the subject in the latter part of the 1970s.
The first point is that we undermine people's respect for democracy. I have alluded to the second point already in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst. The volume of legislation is very great and we often get the statutory language wrong, as the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) knows full well from his time in the courts. If we strip out the process of scrutiny, possible defects in statutory language will simply slip through, and we should not allow that to happen.
My next point is that we are in a truly bizarre situation. There are about 181 pages of amendments; there are certainly 666 amendments, most of them made in the other place. As has been willingly conceded on both sides of the House, most of the amendments will not be discussed tonight. In fact, most of them have come not from this House but exclusively from that House—although often in response to undertakings given by Ministers, it is true.
It is truly bizarre that an unelected Chamber should be the source of primary legislation. It is even more bizarre that the unelected House, for which I have great respect, should be the source of primary legislation on political parties and referendums, with which, by definition, they are not so well acquainted as we are. That is an absolute absurdity.

Mr. Bercow: The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) is leaving the Chamber, but we have more in line for him.

Mr. Hogg: I am always glad to see the hon. Gentleman, whether he is coming or going, so let us not try to detain him.
The remedy is to have elected Members in the other Chamber. We should then be less aggrieved. I would advocate such a policy to the House, but I do not think that I would carry the majority tonight.
I should like to make another point. Debates on amendments are, in the end, often the hook on which hon. Members articulate the views of their electors, with regard either to the amendment or to the circumstances that have given rise to the legislation. If debate is stripped out by timetabling everything or by using the guillotine—a point that the hon. Member for North Cornwall has already made—elected Members are prevented from expressing their constituents' views, either with regard to constituency matters or to the anxieties that they may have about particular amendments. That cannot be right. The effect is to prevent Members of Parliament from articulating their constituents' views or those of interest groups, which seek to influence Parliament through its Members.
Shortly before this debate, the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) introduced a ten-minute Bill, which was persuasively argued against by my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer). One of the questions asked, both explicitly and implicitly, was: why is politics held in such low esteem? Why do not people vote more often? There are many answers—you would call me to order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I tried to trawl through them—but one of them is a sense that Parliament is not performing its function of scrutinising legislation. The lack of independence among Members is a great problem. I am asking not for more independent Members—

Mr. Martin Bell: Why not?

Mr. Hogg: 1 shall not get into that argument. I am asking not for more independent Members, but for more independence among Members—a very different matter. It seems wholly plain that if we allow important legislation to slip through without debate or scrutiny, we shall diminish the country's respect for the statutory, legislative and political process.

Mr. Bercow: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?

Mr. Hogg: Yes, of course I will, but then I shall come slowly to my conclusion.

Mr. Bercow: Cannot Parliament's problem be succinctly encapsulated? By truncating and minimising the consideration of important Bills, are we not demonstrating that we have sacrificed our self-respect? If so, how on earth can we expect anyone else to respect us?

Mr. Hogg: I agree. My hon. Friend makes an important point. I repeatedly hear hon. Members bewailing the difficulties that they face with working practices or

whatever, but the truth is that we are the authors of our own misfortune. The solution is within our grasp. Hon. Members should become more independent and tell their Front Benchers and Whips, "We won't put up with this. We do not like the timetable or the policy." I am here to articulate my views and those of my constituents, not those of anyone else. I did not become a Member of Parliament to echo Front Benchers. I want hon. Members to have more independence. If we achieve that, we shall rise in the esteem of the electorate.

Mr. Robert McCartney: Is not the problem that the right hon. and learned Gentleman adumbrates the result of a party system and professional politicians who are determined to maintain their position on the greasy ladder, which involves not behaving independently, but toeing the Whips' line?

Mr. Hogg: The answer is yes. I have been a career politician. I was pleased and privileged to serve in government for 13 years, and I enjoyed doing so very much, but a great vice of this country's political process is that the Executive is part of the legislature and, moreover, parliamentarians are but the creatures of their parties for the most part. Consequently, we talk about parliamentary sovereignty, but that is rubbish; we are really talking about the concluded opinion of the majority party, provided that the majority of Back Benchers support their Whips. That is not parliamentary democracy as it should be. I entirely agree with the hon. and learned Member for North Down; he goes to the root of the matter.
I shall conclude by reflecting on the fact that we are up against a timetable: the Queen's Speech on 6 December. However, that is an arbitrary timetable and it could be shifted if necessary. That is not really the answer to the question. The answer is that we should not overload the programme—that is what my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire pointed out—which is what happened in this Session. If the programme is overloaded, inevitably, we will end up in the deplorable state in which we have found ourselves this week. That is wrong, and hon. Members who value the parliamentary process and believe in democracy must in our hearts know that that it is wrong.
I will not embarrass Labour Members by mentioning the empty Labour Benches and saying that they should vote with us tonight. I know that they will not and, in any case, they are not here. People who care about democracy need to watch what is happening. Parliament is falling into disrepute and this sort of measure contributes towards that.

Mr. Alex Salmond: I have two reasons for voting against the guillotine. One is slightly frivolous and one is very serious.
What would happen if the guillotine motion failed? Given the proximity to the end of the Session, I imagine that the Bill would be lost. Would that be an enormous disaster? I do not think so—indeed, I can see one reason why it might be useful. Given the Home Secretary's conduct in the past few days, the extra time would give him a chance to recover some sense of balance and perspective. I am referring not to the fact that this is the second guillotine motion that he has introduced this week


but to his remarkable speech last night when he proposed the abolition of the Scotland football team and its merger into a United Kingdom squad. Some people say that the timing was more than coincidental, with Scotland sitting proudly at the top of group 6 while England is propping up group 9. As the wags say in Scotland, England must be the strongest team in the World cup—it is holding up all the other sides.
One thing that is certain is that a Home Secretary who thinks that this is the right time for that spectacular own goal in politics does not seem to be the Home Secretary we should trust to guide through controversial legislation. Earlier today, I was on television with the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks)—the former Sports Minister—who informed me that when he made such a suggestion—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I must bring the hon. Gentleman to order. I am sure that he intends to move on to the allocation of time motion soon.

Mr. Salmond: I am talking about the allocation of time, and the time that the Home Secretary requires to recover his sense of political judgment, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was merely going to say that the hon. Member for West Ham told me that Alastair Campbell had been on the phone to him. I suspect that that must be why the Home Secretary is absent from our proceedings now—Alastair Campbell is telling him off for announcing such a policy on the day of the launch of the Scottish by-elections.
The substantive reason why the guillotine motion should be rejected is that the Home Secretary sought to give the impression in his introduction that the Bill is uncontroversial and that the 666 amendments are uncontroversial and do not deal with points of substance.

Mr. Forth: Wrong.

Mr. Salmond: The Home Secretary tried to give that impression. That is my clear understanding of what he had to say. The Bill started off as a measure that commanded support across the parties—there was remarkable consensus, as there was on the Neill committee—but it no longer commands that consensus. The Home Secretary was kind enough to remind the House that my party and I have long favoured statutory disclosure of donations, statutory provisions on campaign finance and a statutory limit not only on campaign expenditure but on donations, which is absent from the Bill.
We have long believed in all those measures, but we now find ourselves totally opposed to a part of the Bill that contains the most extraordinary anomaly that I can think of in any Bill of recent times. It is a sign of the extent to which Ministers are distant from the reality of that loss of consensus that when I raised the matter with the Home Secretary, rather than realising that I was talking about the Northern Ireland exemption in part IV of the Bill, the right hon. Gentleman thought that I was talking about chapter IV, which deals with referendums.
The Home Secretary does not understand the anxieties of the Scottish National party, which sees that, as a result of the Bill, an expatriate Irish person will be allowed to give money to a political party that has been associated with violence for a generation or more, whereas an

expatriate Scot will not be allowed to give money to the SNP, which has espoused a peaceful, constitutional road to change for 70 years. If the Home Secretary does not realise that that is grossly offensive to many people of all political parties in Scotland, as well as in Northern Ireland and Wales, and that it is a source of major political controversy in the Bill, and if he justifies the guillotine on the basis of an all-party consensus that no longer exists, I seriously doubt his judgment.

Mr. William Ross: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that it is not merely an expatriate Irishman who can send money back? Someone who is expatriate four or five generations down the line, who still calls himself an Irish American or an Irish Australian can do so.

Mr. Salmond: I was interested when the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland quoted the late president of the Ulster Unionist party, who was on to a strong point when he seemed to argue—I have checked the evidence of the Neill committee—that it would inconvenience the UUP, which is a peaceful and democratic party, to turn down donations from expatriate supporters, and wanted that provision to be universally applied. Legislation to stop such donations will not inconvenience the men of violence. The last thing that people who engage in violent activities will be concerned about is what is in a Bill in this House. They are already pursuing illegal activities; they will not be legalised by a House of Commons measure.
The provision will substantially inconvenience democratic and peaceful political parties. That is the anomaly on which the Government are riding in part IV of the legislation. Furthermore, a Northern Ireland Minister—apparently in all innocence—could not cite with any certainty the views of the Northern Ireland parties on that section of the Bill. That should tell the House that the Bill is not in a condition to be guillotined. Indeed, it is not in a condition to be enacted.
What would happen if the guillotine failed and the measure were lost? We read in the Evening Standard today that the Government are considering an April, as opposed to a May, election. Are they saying that they intend to invoke the full provisions of the Bill before an election in the spring of next year? Or are they suggesting that they will be invoked for the following election? If it is the election after next—I suspect that it is and, judging from the detail of the Bill, one must conclude that it is bound to be—why not carry the Bill on to the next Session and regain the all-party consensus with which the Government started the process but which they have lost, as is well understood from the debates in another place?

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): On a point of information, we have made it clear that we hope that some, although not all, of the key provisions of the Bill will come into effect—depending on what is decided today—on 16 February 2001. The time scale that the hon. Gentleman is discussing is obviously important. It is important that the Electoral Commission should be able to get on with its job.

Mr. Salmond: I thank the Minister. That makes the point. If the provisions are to be implemented in
mid-February, it is an open invitation to rush through whatever needs to be rushed through on political parties before a campaign that could start as early as next March. If the Bill is primarily aimed at general elections and fairness, it should be introduced for the following election, when its provisions can be properly understood and implemented.
As it stands, the Bill is certainly discriminatory and unfair. I believe that it is undemocratic. It may also be unlawful and may have to be tested elsewhere. Rather than turn down the arguments against the guillotine, the Government would be well advised to think again about the discriminatory aspects of part IV.

Dr. Julian Lewis: This is the first time that I have spoken on a guillotine motion. It is also the first time that I have spoken in the Chamber since you were appointed to your present post, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I sincerely congratulate you. I hope that you will indulge me slightly if I speak not about the general principle of guillotining but about why I am sad that this Bill will be guillotined. I am sure that you will correct me if I stray into too much detail. I shall try to avoid doing so.
I moved in Committee and on Report in this House an amendment on which some of the Lords amendments have a bearing. My amendment related to a provision in the Representation of the People Act 1983 that makes it a criminal offence deliberately to tell lies about the character and conduct of a candidate for an election with a view to damaging his or her vote in that election.
As I explained at the time—I shall not do so in any detail now—I was the victim of deliberate lies and someone was criminally convicted on seven charges for making gross, lying accusations about my private life and my sexuality. Even to this day, I believe that they damaged at least one relationship that was particularly important to me. More relevantly to the Bill, which will be guillotined, the accusations remained in circulation throughout the election campaign because they were on the internet. Indeed, they remained in circulation on the internet even after the perpetrator had been convicted, having admitted in court that he had no evidence for the lies, and even after he had died.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I know that the hon. Gentleman sought my indulgence, and I think that he has had that. However, I must remind him that this is not a general debate about the Bill, but a debate about the timetable motion. I ask him to return to that subject.

Dr. Lewis: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
It is a matter of great concern that a loophole that was identified in Committee and on Report will not be discussed because of the proposed guillotining of the Bill. The fact is that, in trying to close the loophole that enables such allegations to circulate even though their perpetrator is no longer alive, I had the support of the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) from the Government Back Benches, and I received exceptionally kind consideration from the Minister of State, Home

Office, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), and the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, who I am delighted is here now.
When referring to the problem on Report, the Under-Secretary said:
The Government note the broad support on both sides of the House for dealing with this issue, and the strong sympathy that exists for the proposition made, on this occasion, by the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis).—[Official Report, 14 March 2000; Vol. 346, c. 263–4.]
My proposition was that material uploaded on to the internet before an election campaign should count as an act of publication if it remains on the internet while the election campaign continues.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I regret having to say this, but the hon. Gentleman must now direct his remarks to the timetable motion.

Dr. Lewis: I have almost concluded my remarks. The debate will be truncated in such a way that we shall not be able to consider this and many similarly important issues that relate directly to the democratic process and the effect that abuses of that process can have on the lives and electoral possibilities of candidates for membership this House. I have raised the issue because I hope to elicit from the Under-Secretary a commitment that the Government will seek to deal with this problem in the future.

Mr. Martin Bell: I shall, as always, give the shortest speech in the debate. It is in my nature to give short speeches, but I fear that my campaign for shorter speeches has not caught on; if it had, there would be no need for this debate.
There are measures and there are times when guillotine motions are appropriate. I do not think that this is the right time or the right measure. This is not a technical or non-controversial Bill. It goes to the heart of our democracy and relates to how people vote and how we are chosen and to public perceptions of the Chamber. In many respects, it is profoundly undemocratic and militates against the independent and independent-minded. It will allow vast sums of money to be thrown at the electoral process and it will take us further down the American path. The Bill needs more scrutiny than will be allowed given all the amendments that have been back-loaded on to it.
When I arrived in this place rather unexpectedly in May 1997, I thought that I was joining the free Parliament of a free people. Increasingly, it seems to be more of a rubber-stamp assembly. I am worried by what we are doing tonight. We shall vote in haste and repent at leisure.

Mr. Robert McCartney: I shall speak against the guillotine motion. Although in some circumstances such motions may be justified, Bills to which a large number of amendments have been tabled—technical, consequential or otherwise—and which include provisions that affect the fundamental principles of democratic government and go to the fundamentals of our constitutional process should not be rushed through without scrutiny. They should be considered for their


content and language and they should be subject to careful assessment. As the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) said in his succinct fashion, this place should be a democratic assembly where the principles of democracy and liberty are given the fullest, unrestrained rein when fundamental issues are at stake.
Recently, I read a quotation from Judge Learned Hand, one of the most distinguished jurists of the 20th century. He said this about liberty:
What then is the spirit of liberty?…The spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right; the spirit of liberty is the spirit which seeks to understand the minds of other men and women; the spirit of liberty is the spirit which weights their interests alongside its own without bias.

Can anyone, for one moment, suggest that, in the circumstances of this Bill, any of those fundamental principles has been observed?
Earlier speakers have said that the House is increasingly becoming the creature of parties. There is no question but that the party system and the increasing emphasis in the life of a parliamentarian on having a structured career that leads to office have both militated against the independence of Members. There is perhaps an air of unreality to the debate. We all know that the Whips will give their directions regardless of what any of us say.

Mr. Hogg: May I amplify the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument? In this debate, the majority of hon. Members have supported the views that he is articulating. We all know that in 40 minutes or so, 320 or 330 hon. Members who know nothing about the debate, have not been present and have not taken part in the argument will flock in.

Mr. McCartney: I could not agree more with the right hon. and learned Gentleman. When the Division Bells ring, I often think of the analogy of the Pied Piper of Hamelin: "All they come from their various places—fat ones, thin ones, scrawny ones and tawny ones," making their way to their new lodgings at the direction of the respective pipers, and no doubt hoping to benefit later from the cheese.

Mr. Winnick: It is true that when the Division Bells ring, hundreds of hon. Members—on both sides, incidentally—will come into the Chamber. That has always been the practice, whichever Government were in office. Will the hon. and learned Gentleman take into account the fact that when Government Members have strong feelings against a Government measure or a certain aspect of a Bill, as was the case last night, we are present in the Chamber? Many of us listen closely to the debate and usually we know precisely what we will do: vote against our own Government, as a number of us did last night. The hon. and learned Gentleman should not be too cynical. In the main, my colleagues believe that the Government's proposed guillotine is justified. That is why they are not in the Chamber now.

Mr. McCartney: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman did not think that I had made a generalisation so overriding as to apply to each and every hon. Member or to groups of hon. Members in parties. In the relatively short period that I have been in the House, I have observed nothing that detracts from the principle that I outlined.
When the Whips give their indication, hon. Members pile in and, broadly speaking, do their bidding. We can all say what we like, but elected despotism will be at work. When the Whips call the tune, the matter will be disposed of.
I shall deal briefly with some of the points that are of particular significance to Unionist Members from Northern Ireland. One is the exemption which has been so eloquently dealt with by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), relating to the special dispensation that is to be given to parties in Northern Ireland. It will benefit only two parties, both of them part of the pan-nationalist front: Sinn Fein and the Social Democratic and Labour party, which both claim that a large part of their revenue comes from abroad, principally from the Republic and the United States.
What is baffling to most democrats in Northern Ireland is the vacillating and cowardly policy of appeasement that is afforded to those parties. Sinn Fein has been described by the Prime Minister and successive Secretaries of State as being inextricably linked with the IRA. They are two sides of the same coin. It is a matter of common knowledge in Northern Ireland that all the highest offices in Sinn Fein and the IRA are occupied by the same people, and that the personnel of Sinn Fein almost wear as campaign medals some conviction for a terrorist offence.
It has also been the subject of comment on both sides of the Atlantic—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that we are debating the timetable motion, not the Bill itself.

Mr. McCartney: I agree entirely, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall give the argument some focus.
I have been forced to stress some of the substance of the argument in order to highlight the circumstances in which matters of fundamental constitutional and democratic principle will be swept to one side and afforded inadequate treatment and scrutiny because of the guillotine. Were it not for the guillotine, many matters that are of the most fundamental importance could be considered.
As the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan pointed out, why should parties which observe the democratic process, eschew violence and attempt to achieve their political goals in peaceful and non-violent ways be penalised by special concessions made to parties which the Government admit are inextricably linked with terrorist organisations?
I finish by saying that this evening, when the Division Bells ring, when the guillotine motion is carried in favour of the Government, and when, after inadequate discussion and scrutiny of both its content and its language, the Bill is blitzed through the parliamentary process, people in Northern Ireland will have to live with the consequences. Their belief in democracy will be shattered. They will see those who rely on violence raised up and financially fed. The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office may smile, but that is what people in Northern Ireland will see.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: The Secretary of State was disappointed that his benign intent in moving the guillotine motion on Monday night was


defeated by the wilful nature of the Opposition, who, in his estimation, subsequently discussed all the wrong amendments.
That is a measure of the Government's arrogance when they introduce such motions. They decide in their own minds what it is proper for the Opposition to discuss. They tell us that under the terms of their motion, there was time to discuss what in their opinion ought to have been discussed. That was precisely the point made by the Secretary of State—the Government should be scrutinised on their own terms, not according to the estimates of the Opposition.
The right hon. Gentleman went on to even greater arrogance when he said that the Government, when in opposition, had learned from the process when they began to co-operate with the then Government. We have heard that theme several times this week. No wonder this week has been characterised as national guillotine week.
Let me make a point that I made earlier this week about what such co-operation means. I recall, as do other Opposition Members, that the Scotland Act 1998 passed through the House with some measure of co-operation. That is exactly the sort of co-operation that was lauded this evening by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler). An agreement was reached between the two Front Benches, so that the right things, according to the estimation of both sides, would be debated.
Again and again, that was used to silence dissent on the Government Benches. What those on my Front Bench thought it proper to discuss was not entirely consistent with what I thought it proper to discuss but, much more important, given his role in that debate, what was discussed was not what the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) considered it important to discuss. Again and again, amendments that he considered important were never discussed.

Mr. Salmond: The hon. Gentleman is far too modest. I recall that exactly. The target was not the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), but the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Swayne: I thank my hon. Friend, if I may call him that as he approaches his swan song in the House.
The Secretary of State closed his remarks earlier by saying that he deserved to be kissed. In my estimation, given the damage that the guillotine motion does to the very substance of democracy, those who introduce such motions deserve not to be kissed. Rather, they deserve to be garotted with their own intestines.

Mr. John Bercow: Unless provoked, I shall be brief. Before dealing with a couple of particular concerns, I want to refer to the important issue highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), who raised the subject of character assassination on the internet during an election campaign. It was my impression that he was genuinely aggrieved that, as a result of the timetable motion, there would be inadequate time properly to consider that matter. I also had the impression that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), had some thoughts on it.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: I do not know whether the timetable will allow us to discuss the points raised by the

hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), but I can tell him that although we were unable to deal with his serious concerns in the Bill, the Government do not have a closed mind on such matters, and I shall be happy to discuss them with him if an opportunity arises

Mr. Bercow: I am grateful for that observation. It reassures me and, I imagine, is even more reassuring to my hon. Friend.
I want to address two points made respectively by the Home Secretary and the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). The Home Secretary appeared to advance the novel and pernicious parliamentary doctrine that the greater the amendment of a Bill in the other place, the more compelling the argument for its truncated consideration in this place.
I utterly reject that spurious doctrine. The rationale behind it would allow all sorts of Bills—ill-conceived, badly drafted, hastily introduced by the Government and duly amended, in a draconian manner, in the other place—to be rushed through the House. That is unacceptable. I hope that the Home Secretary will ponder that doctrine again. I do not know whether he planned to come to the House to defend and advance it, or whether he simply made an off-the-cuff comment that he dreamt up in response to criticism. Either way, it was unsatisfactory and indefensible.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: rose—

Mr. Bercow: The hon. Gentleman is quivering in his seat, as well he might, but he must exercise what self-restraint he can muster in the circumstances. I want to deal with him briefly, but with relish.
The hon. Gentleman provided a charge sheet of alleged parliamentary sins, culled from the historical record of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay), the shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, as though that justified the vicious assault on the rights of Members of Parliament which the Government are perpetrating today. For the avoidance of doubt, I repeat that I could not give a tinker's cuss whether my right hon. Friend has a sinful track record or whether he is the epitome of parliamentary virtue, as I have always imagined him to be. The issue is not how many guillotines there have been in the past, or whether consideration of Bills was truncated in the 1970s, 1980s or the 1990s, but what is proposed now. If the hon. Member for Workington has a half defence of his earlier utterance, I shall readily give way to him.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Gentleman is a very young man. Will he give an undertaking that if there were a Tory Government in 15 or 20 years' time, there would be no circumstances under which he would go into the Lobby to guillotine a substantial number of Lords amendments?

Mr. Bercow: No, I will not give that undertaking, and for two reasons. First, it is unwise to say never; secondly, one has to consider particular circumstances. The hon. Gentleman has helpfully brought me on to the relevant matter.

Dr. Julian Lewis: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Bercow: Not just yet.
The hon. Gentleman is perfectly well aware that we are dealing with the issue of 666 amendments that were made in the other place to this incredibly poor legislation—the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill. In practice, that amounts to something like 21.6 seconds for the consideration of each amendment if there are no votes, which is, of course, an unrealistic assumption.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: If the number of amendments were cut by 75 per cent., leaving us with 150 to discuss, the hon. Gentleman would have one and a third minutes for each one. Would that enable him to give the undertaking that I requested?

Mr. Bercow: It is extremely unlikely that I would want to support such a proposition. If the hon. Gentleman wants to hold me to account in future years to judge whether I have stood by the pledge that he believes me to have given, I shall be happy to see what the record demonstrates. The House will have detected that he is keen to divert attention away from the parliamentary vandalism in which the Government are engaged.
It is offensive that the Government should suggest that the matters for consideration are minor, trivial, insignificant or piddling. They are nothing of the kind. They involve the transfer of functions from boundary commissions to the Electoral Commission and the creation of the parliamentary parties panel. We do not know how that new body, previously not mentioned, will work, who will be involved in it or what level of accountability it will attain. This is a proper time to consider such matters. Another consideration is the obligation of the Secretary of State to consult on the wording of questions in future referendums. Those matters cannot be lightly cast aside.
We are also dealing with the Disqualifications Bill. I believe that it is an odious, repulsive and disgraceful measure. It is an affront to the rights and integrity of the House that the Government should seek to justify the circumscription of debate on a matter that is so repugnant to so many people. It is especially repugnant when we reflect on the fact, as the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) suggested, that the debate is being truncated to curry favour with, to appease and to suck up to an unrepresentative minority called Sinn Fein.
We can learn from some of the great figures who made this place great. Edmund Burke was one of the finest parliamentarians in the history of this country and, as it happens, the father of modern conservatism. What did he have to say about unrepresentative minorities? He said:
Because half a dozen grasshoppers under a fern make the field ring with their importunate chink, whilst thousands of great cattle, reposed beneath the shadow of the British oak, chew the cud and are silent, pray do not imagine that those who make the most noise are the only inhabitants of the field.
The Government are sucking up to a minority; they are praying in aid a minority; and they are seeking to appease a minority. It might be a noisy minority, but it remains a minority; it is not a majority. What they are proposing is in the face of the opposition of the majority of decent, right-thinking, law-abiding people of this country. If the House is not prepared to stand up to such barbarity, but is party to its own castration, it deserves its own fate.

Mr. Dominic Grieve: The debate has been varied, but one point of view has been overwhelmingly expressed, and not just by Conservative Members. Other hon. Members on the Opposition Benches have also said that the decision to guillotine this legislation is a serious mistake.
Ministers on the Treasury Bench have missed the point that the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill creates 69 criminal offences. They are being justified by the need to regulate what previously was an unregulated activity. When the Bill was before the other place, the Under-Secretary of State, Lord Bassam, said:
I readily admit that the Bill is cumbersome and bureaucratic.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 10 October 2000; Vol. 617, c. 272.1
A piece of legislation which started out in the House to universal acclaim, with the desire to see it properly executed and enacted, has gradually deteriorated under scrutiny.
That need not have mattered. I found the period that I spent on Committee on the Bill one of the most rewarding that I have had in the course of the three and a half years that I have been in the House. It was an opportunity to look logically and straightforwardly, on a cross-party basis, at difficult issues and to examine them. The difficulty was that, at the end of the process, the theory that had appeared to be so good appeared in practice to be sadly wanting in many areas.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office, had the decency to say that the Government would go away and think about that and do their best to remedy the matter, that the matter would be considered carefully in another place, and that every effort would be made to improve it. The sad fact is that that did not happen. Not only did that not happen, but I regret that the Government started to look around for someone else to blame for the fact that the Bill was not working.
In late May, there was a wonderful exchange of correspondence in which the Minister of State, Home Office sought to suggest, on the letter paper of the Labour party press office over the House of Commons logo, that in some way the Opposition parties were to blame for the difficulties that had come about. He even went so far as to suggest that in some way the Opposition parties were seeking to obstruct the Bill.
That is far from being the case. We have glowing testimony from Lord Bassam, and Lord Carter said:
I should like to offer my sincere thanks to the Opposition Chief Whip, the Opposition Front Bench, the Liberal Democrat Front Bench and the Back Benches of all parties. We reached the target that we were hoping for…I am truly grateful for the co-operation that has been demonstrated by the whole House.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24 October 2000; Vol. 618, c. 273.]
That is how the Opposition, and I think that I can speak also for the Liberal Democrats, have approached the issue.
However, at the end of the day we have ended up with 666 Government amendments and the Bill is a shambles. In the time available, I cannot do justice to explaining the need for time to consider what we are about to do. However, I shall select a couple of amendments which we shall never reach in our consideration of the Bill in a month of Sundays.
First, it may surprise some Government Back Benchers to learn that if, during the course of the next general election, a person in their constituency nominates them as a candidate, even if they have not been consulted, as the Bill is currently drafted the election clock will start to tick against their expenses. That is a matter that I should like to address in today's debate, but I cannot because it arises under amendment No. 294, and there is no possibility that that will be reached.
Then we have the extraordinary fact that, whether one is a Labour, Conservative or Liberal Democrat, if one's local association treasurer drops dead and one is worried or saddened and wants to visit the widow or widower with regard to the funeral arrangements, if the Electoral Commission is not notified of a replacement within 14 days, a criminal offence is committed. The law will be draconian. There is a sentence of up to one year's imprisonment for failure to comply with the regulations that we are introducing in this gross and cavalier fashion.
All we ask of the Government is some time for reasoned debate. It is unbelievable that the Representation of the People Act 1983 should be reworded in serious and major ways entirely in the other place, not by ourselves. The Parliamentary Secretary admitted how rewarding it was that Members of Parliament, Back Bench and Front Bench, could attend the Committee and present reasoned arguments based on personal experience. There may be a lot of personal experience in the other place on these matters, but our experience of the practical requirements of running political parties, which are ultimately voluntary organisations—we hope for the public good—means that we can address the practical problems in a way that cannot be done elsewhere. Yet that is the tone of the entire way in which we are approaching the matter.
We are simply told that we should not worry about all this and that four hours of debate will be sufficient. The fact that we are about to take dangerous and rotten steps—as pointed out by the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell), eloquently and in short form, by the Liberal Democrats and by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), my hon. Friends the Members for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) and for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), and even by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), who made a perfectly valid point about the iniquities and inequalities that we are introducing by not having a single United Kingdom regime—is ignored.
A Bill that started off as gold has not just ended up as brass but as really base metal. That is a tragedy. The guillotine motion is a reflection of the fact that the Government, when confronted with those difficulties, have simply buried their head in the sand. The motion is unacceptable and I hope that all hon. Members will consider the issue and vote against it.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. George Howarth): The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) knows—the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping), made the

point in earlier debates—that the Government respect the way in which the hon. Gentleman came to the Bill, giving it much thought and making constructive suggestions. Not only that, but some of those suggestions ended up as amendments. He rightly said that there was a spirit of co-operation on the Bill between those on the Front Benches and all Members of the Committee. Given that spirit, I find it strange that the hon. Gentleman suddenly manages to work himself up into—something of a rage is probably a slight exaggeration, but certainly he seems much exercised by the fact that he feels that there is much still to be resolved.
The reason why there has been a great deal of debate is that the issue is sensitive and difficult. The reason why people listened intently not only to the hon. Gentleman but to others is that if there is one thing on which hon. Members have a collective expertise, it is elections. For that reason, all contributions were taken seriously and amendments resulted from that.
The second argument that the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) have advanced is the large number of amendments. They have repeatedly and correctly quoted the figure of 666. During the course of the debate, I took the trouble to re-read some of those amendments to try to understand why there should be such concern about their number. What do the amendments do? It is evidently true that there are a large number of amendments.
I opened a page at random and tried to work through the consequences of the amendments on that page. Amendments Nos. 152 to 156 on page 32, Nos. 193 to 197 on page 38, and Nos. 239 to 243 on page 44–15 in all—all have the same effect. They change the requirement for political parties to produce receipts for expenditure from a sum of £100 to a sum of £200. The perfectly reasonable purpose behind those amendments was that, given our wide experience as members of political parties and of fighting elections, it was felt that to increase the sum to £200 would reduce the administrative burden on political parties.

Mr. MacKay: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Howarth: I shall give way to the right hon. Gentleman, but he will realise that I do not have much time.

Mr. MacKay: No one in the Opposition has suggested that the majority of the 666 amendments are controversial and need much debate. However, there are certain groups of amendments that require substantial debate, including those on Northern Ireland. Does the Minister accept that four hours is not enough time to debate those substantial issues? It is irrelevant to talk about non-controversial and consequential amendments, as he has been doing.

Mr. Howarth: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman acknowledged that the overwhelming majority of the amendments are non-controversial. However, that is not the tone of contributions from several of his Back-Bench colleagues.

Mr. Salmond: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Howarth: No, I simply do not have time.
The right hon. Member for Bracknell raised the issue of clause 65. For obvious reasons, I do not want to get into a convoluted discussion, but it is fair to say that the clause generated controversy. However, after coming back from the House of Lords, the clause is in almost entirely the same form as it was when it left the House. Therefore, it cannot have generated the amount of controversy that the right hon. Gentleman claimed.
Finally, I want to say a word about the Disqualifications Bill which, I accept, has generated controversy. The right hon. Member for Bracknell and others said that they do not like the Bill and that it should not be enacted. Indeed, they feel that it is a constitutional abuse. That is a fair summary of their argument—

Mr. MacKay: Very fair.

Mr. Howarth: Fine, but I refer the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues to the Bill's Second Reading on 24 January 2000. The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) said:
As we recognise that the aim of the Bill is to build on what has already been achieved in Northern Ireland, we will not oppose its Second Reading.—[Official Report, 24 January 2000; Vol. 343, c. 34.]

Sir Patrick Cormack: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Howarth: No, there is not time.
The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald continued—

Sir Patrick Cormack: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a fact that the Opposition voted against the Bill unanimously on Third Reading.

Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Howarth: I was not referring to what happened on Third Reading. The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald went on to refer to amendments that had been tabled by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). As I remember, he tabled three amendments, which were mostly to do with extending the disqualification to serving Ministers, Committee Chairmen and one other category. On Second Reading, I gave the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald an undertaking that we would consider those amendments carefully. As the Bill has progressed, we have taken the amendments into account and incorporated them in the Bill.
When the Opposition started off, they shared certain concerns with the right hon. Member for Upper Bann. We took those concerns into account and have acted on them. However, the Conservative Front Bench simply lost control of events at that time—

It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the allocation of time motion, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to the Standing Order.

The House divided: Ayes 358, Noes 177.

Division No. 362]
7.44 pm


Ayes


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Ainger, Nick
Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Cooper, Yvette


Alexander, Douglas
Corbett, Robin


Allen, Graham
Corston, Jean


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Cousins, Jim


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Cranston, Ross


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Crausby, David


Ashton, Joe
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Atherton, Ms Candy
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Atkins, Charlotte
Cummings, John


Austin, John
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack


Bailey, Adrian
(Copeland)


Banks, Tony
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Barnes, Harry
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire


Barron, Kevin
Dalyell, Tam


Battle, John
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Bayley, Hugh
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Beard, Nigel
Davidson, Ian


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Begg, Miss Anne
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Davis, Rt Hon Terry


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
(B'ham Hodge H)


Bennett, Andrew F
Dawson, Hilton


Benton, Joe
Dean, Mrs Janet


Bermingham, Gerald
Denham, John


Berry, Roger
Dismore, Andrew


Best, Harold
Dobbin, Jim


Betts, Clive
Donohoe, Brian H


Blackman, Liz
Doran, Frank


Blears, Ms Hazel
Dowd, Jim


Blizzard, Bob
Drew, David


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Drown, Ms Julia


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Borrow, David
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Edwards, Huw


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Efford, Clive


Bradshaw, Ben
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Ennis, Jeff


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna


Browne, Desmond
Flint, Caroline


Buck, Ms Karen
Flynn, Paul


Burden, Richard
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Burgon, Colin
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Butler, Mrs Christine
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)



Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Galloway, George


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Gapes, Mike


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Gardiner, Barry


Campbell—savours, Dale
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Caplin, Ivor
Gerrard, Neil


Casale, Roger
Gibson, Dr Ian


Caton, Martin
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Cawsey, Ian
Godman, Dr Norman A


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Godsiff, Roger


Chaytor, David
Goggins, Paul


Clapham, Michael
Golding, Mrs Llin


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Clark, Dr Lynda
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


(Edinburgh Pentlands)

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Grocott, Bruce


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Grogan, John


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Clelland, David
Hanson, David


Clwyd, Ann
Healey, John


Coaker, Vernon
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Coffey, Ms Ann
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Cohen, Harry
Hendrick, Mark


Coleman, Iain
Hepburn, Stephen


Colman, Tony
Heppell, John


Connarty, Michael
Hesford, Stephen






Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Hill, Keith
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Hinchliffe, David
Martlew, Eric


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Meale, Alan


Hood, Jimmy
Merron, Gillian


Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Hope, Phil
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Hopkins, Kelvin
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan


Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)
Miller, Andrew



Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Mitchell, Austin


Hoyle, Lindsay
Moffatt, Laura


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Moran, Ms Margaret


Humble, Mrs Joan
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Hurst, Alan
Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)


Hutton, John
Morley, Elliot


Iddon, Dr Brian
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle


Illsley, Eric
(B'ham Yardley)


Ingram, Rt Hon Adam
Morris, Rt Hon Sir John


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
(Aberavon)


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Mountford, Kali


Jenkins, Brian
Mudie, George


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Mullin, Chris


Johnson, Miss Melanie
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


(Welwyn Hatfield)
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Jones, Ms Jenny
Norris, Dan


(Wolverh'ton SW)
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
O'Hara, Eddie


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Olner, Bill


Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
O'Neill, Martin


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Organ, Mrs Diana


Keeble, Ms Sally
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Palmer, Dr Nick


Kemp, Fraser
Pearson, Ian


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Pendry, Tom


Khabra, Piara S
Perham, Ms Linda


Kidney, David
Pickthall, Colin


Kilfoyle, Peter
Plaskitt, James


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Pollard, Kerry


Kingham, Ms Tess
Pond, Chris


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Pope, Greg


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Pound, Stephen


Lammy, David
Powell, Sir Raymond


Laxton, Bob
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Lepper, David
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Levitt, Tom
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Primarolo, Dawn


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Prosser, Gwyn


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Purchase, Ken



Love, Andrew
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


McAvoy, Thomas
Quinn, Lawrie


McCabe, Steve
Radice, Rt Hon Giles


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Rapson, Syd


McCartney, Rt Hon Ian
Raynsford, Nick


(Makerfield)
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


McDonagh, Siobhain
Robertson, John


Macdonald, Calum
(Glasgow Anniesland)


McDonnell, John
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


McFall, John
Roche, Mrs Barbara


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Rogers, Allan


McIsaac, Shona
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Rooney, Terry


Mackinlay, Andrew
Ross, Emie (Dundee W)


McNamara, Kevin
Rowlands, Ted


McNuity, Tony
Roy, Frank


MacShane, Denis
Ruane, Chris


Mactaggart, Fiona
Ruddock, Joan


McWalter, Tony
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


McWilliam, John
Ryan, Ms Joan


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Salter, Martin


Mallaber, Judy
Sarwar, Mohammad


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Savidge, Malcolm


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Sedgemore, Brian





Sheerman, Barry
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Sheldon,Rt Hon Robert
Timms, Stephen


Shipley, Ms Debra
Tipping, Paddy


Short, Rt Hon Clare
Todd, Mark


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Touhig, Don


Singh, Marsha
Trickett, Jon


Skinner, Dennis
Truswell, Paul


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Smith, Miss Geraldine
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


(Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Tynan, Bill


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Vis, Dr Rudi


Snape, Peter
Walley, Ms Joan


Soley, Clive
Ward, Ms Claire


Southworth, Ms Helen
Wareing, Robert N


Spellar, John
Watts, David


Squire, Ms Rachel
White, Brian


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Steinberg, Gerry
Wicks, Malcolm


Stevenson, George
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Stewart, David (Inverness E)
(Swansea W)


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Stinchcombe, Paul
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Stoate, Dr Howard
Wills, Michael


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Wilson, Brian


Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Winnick, David


Stringer, Graham
Woolas, Phil


Stuart, Ms Gisela
Worthington, Tony


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


(Dewsbury)
Wyatt, Derek


Taylor, Ms Dan (Stockton S)



Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Temple-Morris, Peter
Mr. David Jamieson and


Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Mr. Mike Hall.




NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Allan, Richard
Collins, Tim


Amess, David
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Cotter, Brian


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Cran, James


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Curry, Rt Hon David


Baker, Norman
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Ballard, Jackie
Davies, Quentin (Grantham)


Beggs, Roy
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Day, Stephen


Bercow, John
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen



Blunt, Crispin
Duncan, Alan


Boswell, Tim
Duncan Smith, Iain


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Fabricant, Michael


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Fearn, Ronnie


Brady, Graham
Flight, Howard


Brake, Tom
Forth, Rt Hon Eric


Brand, Dr Peter
Foster, Don (Bath)


Brazier, Julian
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Breed, Colin
Gale, Roger


Browning, Mrs Angela
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Gibb, Nick


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Gidley, Sandra


Burnett, John
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl


Burns, Simon
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Burstow, Paul
Greenway, John


Butterfill, John
Grieve, Dominic


Cash, William
Gummer, Rt Hon John


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


(Chipping Barnet)
Hammond, Philip


Chidgey, David
Hancock, Mike


Chope, Christopher
Harris, Dr Evan


Clappison, James
Harvey, Nick


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Hawkins, Nick


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth
Hayes, John


(Rushcliffe)
Heald, Oliver






Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxboume)


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Horam, John
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Ruffley, David


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Hunter, Andrew
St Aubyn, Nick


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Salmond, Alex


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Sanders, Adrian


Jenkin, Bernard
Sayeed, Jonathan


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Keetch, Paul
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


(Ross Skye & Inverness W)
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Key, Robert
Soames, Nicholas


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Kirkwood, Archy
Spicer, Sir Michael


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Spring, Richard


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Lansley, Andrew
Steen, Anthony


Leigh, Edward
Streeter, Gary


Letwin, Oliver
Stunell, Andrew


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Swayne, Desmond


Lidington, David
Syms, Robert


Livsey, Richard
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)


Llwyd, Elfyn
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Loughton, Tim
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Taylor, Sir Teddy


McCartney, Robert (N Down)
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Thompson, William


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Tonge, Dr Jenny


MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Townend, John


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Tredinnick, David


Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert
Trend, Michael


McLoughlin, Patrick
Trimble, Rt Hon David


Malins, Humfrey
Tyler, Paul


Maples, John
Viggers, Peter


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
Walker, Cecil


May, Mrs Theresa
Wafter, Robert


Moore, Michael
Waterson, Nigel


Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)
Webb, Steve


Moss, Malcolm
Wells, Bowen


Nicholls, Patrick
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Norman, Archie
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Oaten, Mark
Willetts, David


Öpik, Lembit
Willis, Phil


Ottaway, Richard
Wilshire, David


Page, Richard
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Paice, James
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Pickles, Eric
Yeo, Tim


Prior, David
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Randall, John



Redwood, Rt Hon John
Tellers for the Noes:


Rendel, David
Mr. Peter Luff and


Robathan, Andrew
Mr. James Gray.

Resolved,

That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill and the Disqualifications Bill:—

Lords Amendments

1.—(1) Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill shall be completed at today's sitting and, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion at midnight.

(2) Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Disqualifications Bill shall be completed in one allotted day and, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion three hours after their commencement.

2.—(1) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing proceedings on either Bill to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1.

(2) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided.

(3) If that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment, the Speaker shall then put forthwith—

(a) a single Question on any further Amendments of the Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown, and
(b) the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown that this House agrees or disagrees with the Lords in their Amendment or (as the case may be) in their Amendment as amended.

(4) The Speaker shall then put forthwith—

(a) a single Question on any Amendments moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment, and
(b) the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown that this House agrees or disagrees with the Lords in their Amendment or (as the case may be) in their Amendment as amended.

(5) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown that this House disagrees with the Lords in a Lords Amendment.

(6) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question that this House agrees with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments.

(7) As soon as the House has—

(a) agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments, or
(b) disposed of an Amendment relevant to a Lords Amendment which has been disagreed to,

the Speaker shall put forthwith a single Question on any Amendments moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to the Lords Amendment.

Subsequent stages

3.—(l) The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the consideration forthwith of any further Message from the Lords on either Bill.

(2) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.

4.—(1) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 3.

(2) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided.

(3) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair.

(4) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on or relevant to any of the remaining items in the Lords Message.

(5) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question that this House agrees with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

Reasons Committee

5.—(1) This paragraph applies to any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, in relation to either Bill, for the appointment, nomination and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the appointment of its Chairman.

(2) The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on the Motion.

(3) The Committee shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.

(4) Proceedings in the Committee shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion 30 minutes after their commencement.

(5) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with sub-paragraph (4), the Chairman shall—

(a) first put forthwith any Question which has been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and
(b) then put forthwith successively Questions on Motions which may be made by a Minister of the Crown for assigning a Reason for disagreeing with the Lords in any of their Amendments.

(6) The proceedings of the Committee shall be reported without any further Question being put.

Miscellaneous

6.—(1) The following paragraphs apply to—

(a) proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill,
(b) proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Disqualifications Bill,
(c) proceedings on any further Message from the Lords on either Bill, and
(d) proceedings on the appointment, nomination and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons (and the appointment of its Chairman) and the Report of such a Committee.

7. Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.

8. The proceedings shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

9. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings shall be made except by a Minister of the Crown; and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

10.—(1) If on a day on which any of the proceedings take place a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would stand over to Seven o'clock—

(a) that Motion stands over until the conclusion of any of the proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time, and
(b) the bringing to a conclusion of any of the proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion after that time is postponed for a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

(2) If a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 stands over from an earlier day to such a day, the bringing to a conclusion of any of the proceedings on that day is postponed for a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

11. If the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the expiry of the period at the end of which any of the proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

The allotted day

12. In this Order, "allotted day" means any day on which the Disqualifications Bill is put down on the main business as first Government Order of the Day.

Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill

Lords amendments considered.
7.58 pm

Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): I draw the House's attention to the fact that privilege is involved in Lords amendments Nos. 19, 71, 130, 359 to 361 and 637, which are to be considered today. If the House agrees to any of those Lords amendments, I shall ensure that the appropriate entry is made in the Journal.

Clause 3

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 2, 3, 12, 357 to 368, 370 and amendments (a) and (b) thereto, 371, 372 and amendments (a) and (b) thereto, and 373.

Mr. O'Brien: The amendments are designed to strengthen the independence of the Electoral Commission. Given the commission's wide responsibilities, including, in particular, for the controls on parties' income and expenditure, it is imperative that it should be seen to be scrupulously independent of the Government of the day and of political parties.
No electoral commissioner should have had a high-profile association with a particular party. The amendments will therefore bar from appointment anyone who is a member of a registered party; has, in the past 10 years, been an officer or employee of a registered party; has held a relevant elective office; or has been a donor to a registered party. Amendments will be made to schedule 1 to ensure that the restrictions will also apply to deputy and assistant electoral commissioners and, save in one respect, the staff of the commission.

Mr. Alex Salmond: I do not know whether the Minister was present in the Chamber earlier, when the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy


(Mr. Llwyd) pointed out that, under amendment No. 1, someone could resign their membership of a political party, tear up his political card one day and become an electoral commissioner the next. Similar provisions would not apply if he was an employee of or donor to a political party, when a 10-year cooling-off period will apply. Was the Minister's real intention to make it possible for someone to become an independent electoral commissioner by tearing up his party card on a Monday and becoming a commissioner on Tuesday?

Mr. O'Brien: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we cannot cover every single option in detail in legislation. We must allow at least for a semblance of common sense in those who are making appointments. We must also recognise that the way in which the appointments are made must command the respect and support of political parties across the spectrum. We believe that it is necessary to provide clear statutory guidance on our approach. However, in terms of ensuring that we get the best people for the job, we must allow for the common sense of all the political parties.
If somebody who is appointed to head the Electoral Commission or to take up a senior position on it is seen by a political party—whether it is the Scottish National party or any other—to be biased, that will cause serious concern across the spectrum. All of us must ensure that the Electoral Commission is above reproach. There are limits on how far legislation can go to achieve that, but we must ensure that the body commands respect. I do not think that we need to go as far as the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) suggests, but we all have a vested interest in ensuring respect for the commission — respect that can be commanded by the people who hold the senior positions within it.

Mr. Graham Brady: What does the Under-Secretary believe to be an acceptable period between leaving a political party and being appointed to the commission?

Mr. O'Brien: To some extent, that will depend on the individual and the circumstances. Mere membership of a political party does not mean that a person forfeits his or her sense of integrity, professional judgment or ability to make a considered and fair decision. Membership of a political party, whether it is the Conservative party, the Labour party or any other, should not be seen as undermining the quality of a person. I am sure that, like me, the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) can think of hon. Members on both sides of the House who are regarded with considerable respect. We must ensure that members of all parties and others outside the House can regard the people appointed to the positions as having integrity.

Mr. Brady: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. O'Brien: I do not want to give way to the hon. Gentleman again. I should like to make some progress, after which I shall perhaps give way to one or two hon. Members if they want me to do so.
We have extended the bar on party membership only to the chief executive. As with civil servants, other members of staff will be able to be members of political parties, although I expect the commission to adopt

appropriate restrictions on their political activities. In view of the fact that the commission's staff will have access to sensitive financial information relating to parties, it has been suggested that all staff should be subject to the bar on party membership.
I do not believe that there is sufficient cause to curtail the individual rights of staff in that way. Their position will be no different from that, for example, of Inland Revenue staff, who have access to potentially sensitive information about the financial affairs of individual politicians. Neither will their position differ from that of my Home Office staff, who deal with information from political parties. I expect the commission's staff to discharge their duties in a wholly impartial manner and with complete discretion, whatever their own political affiliations or persuasions.
In my experience with Inland Revenue and Home Office staff, that impartiality and discretion has been evident at all times. I have no idea what the political persuasions of those staff are, or, indeed, whether they have any. All I know is that I have seen nothing that would justify my making the suggestion that political persuasion would affect their ability to make proper judgments. A clear view on current political membership is needed with regard to one aspect of senior management in the Electoral Commission. However, there is then the question whether we should bar people from doing something that I hope most hon. Members would encourage—to become active in their society. I do not think that there are any grounds for preventing people from exercising their freedom in that regard.
We recognise that distancing the electoral commissioners from any active association with party politics means that they may not have ready access to experience of operating a party machine or campaigning at elections. Indeed, that issue was raised in previous debates on the Bill. Effective regulation requires the regulator to have a clear understanding of the supervised activity. That applies to the regulation of political parties just as it applies to the regulation of casinos, financial services or anything else.
To ensure that the commission has ready access to necessary information to enable it to make an impartial and independent judgment on the issue at stake, the new clause inserted by amendment No. 3 provides for the establishment of the Parliamentary Parties Panel. The panel will be composed of representatives of parties with two or more Members of Parliament who have taken the oath. Its function will be to submit representations or information to the commission about such matters affecting political parties as it thinks fit. The commission must give due consideration to any points raised by the panel, but will not necessarily be bound by them.
I emphasise that the panel is not in any sense an advisory panel. If we were setting up a formal advisory panel, its membership would have to be a good deal wider. It would, for example, have to include representatives of non-parliamentary parties and electoral administrators. I expect the commission to put in place its own arrangements for consulting those wider groups on particular issues as they arise. It will, of course, be open to the panel to comment as a panel on the commission's proposals. However, in such circumstances, its representations must be considered alongside any other comments received in response to a wider consultation exercise.
I believe that the Parliamentary Parties Panel will respond appropriately to concerns expressed about the operation of the commission. It will ensure that the commission is made aware when any of its decisions might undermine the ability of political parties to operate within our political system effectively and with integrity.

Mr. John Bercow: I expressed concerns about that point earlier. I trust that the procedure described by the Under-Secretary will not occur by way of a hole-in-corner operation. Will the Parliamentary Parties Panel be obliged to publish its comments or will the commission be required to do so on its behalf?

Mr. O'Brien: The Bill contains nothing that would oblige the commission to publish in a particular way. As hon. Members know, however, the Freedom of Information Bill was all too recently considered by the House and will change for the better the behaviour of many organisations and institutions, and create greater openness. The Electoral Commission and the Parliamentary Parties Panel must have regard to the way in which Parliament expects such organisations to operate—an expectation that is demonstrated by its support for the freedom of information legislation.
I commend the amendments to the House.

Mr. Dominic Grieve: There is much in the amendments that we can welcome. The Government have taken on board a number of points that were made at a much earlier stage in the Bill's progress, and reiterated in another place. We acknowledge that they have responded to our anxieties, and that the Bill has undoubtedly been improved as a result.
We are particularly pleased about the creation of a Parliamentary Parties Panel. That strikes us as a sensible measure—although I hope that the Minister and, perhaps, the Electoral Commission will note the pertinent comment of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). It illustrates the fact that, even at this late stage, it is possible to make improvements. We are also pleased about the decision to exclude the commissioner and deputy commissioners from membership of political parties. That too constitutes a lessening of what, at an earlier stage, struck us as a serious problem.
Nevertheless, we do not think that what has been done goes far enough. The Minister mentioned our amendments (a) and (b) to Lords amendments Nos. 370 and 372. Only yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) received an answer to her written question No. 80 about precisely this matter. The Minister made it clear that, while it was expected that the Electoral Commission would require its staff to discharge their duties in a similar way to civil servants, the way in which the commission had been established would mean that there was no requirement for them to do so.
Another point is noteworthy in the context of Northern Ireland. One argument advanced by the Government—reasonably, in our view—against the disclosure of donations was that even if disclosure was made solely to the Electoral Commission or to officers in Northern Ireland, there was a danger that the information would

leak out. The Government were concerned about that—and, in the Northern Ireland context, they were extremely concerned about the personal safety of those who might be donors.
When, as it were, we come over to this side of the Irish sea we may hope that those who make political donations will not be the targets of assassins. Nevertheless, it seems extraordinary to us that staff may be members of the Electoral Commission—which carries out detailed scrutiny and checking of returns made by political parties—although they may be major participants in the activities of their local political associations. There is no restriction whatever on such membership.
It is not a question of slipping information to the press, or making use of that information to secure the open embarrassment of some other party. Doubtless the information will emerge, and people will discover who works for the commission. We are concerned about the possibility that a senior member of staff—not one who is currently banned—will be the treasurer of a local association, and could have access to information relating to Opposition or other parties' finances in the same constituency. If that happened, the system would be brought into serious disrepute.
In Committee, we spent a long time discussing the problems of disclosure. In particular, we discussed where the ceiling should be in relation to small or larger associations, and the danger that political parties might derive an unfair advantage from obtaining information about other parties while not disclosing information themselves. I can think of a telling example. Let us suppose that it became known—even if no harm resulted—that an officer in the Electoral Commission, carrying out sensitive work, could obtain access to information relating to political parties, not his own, and that it might be to his personal advantage simply to have that information at the back of his mind.
We think that the Government should have gone further. The Bill will leave the House and be given Royal Assent—that, after all, it is what will happen to it after this evening —in an unsatisfactory form. I regret that. I also regret the fact that, by virtue of the extraordinary way in which the amendments have been grouped, there is no possibility of putting the matter to the vote. Let me tell the Minister that if there had been such an opportunity, we would have availed ourselves of it.

Mr. Andrew Stunell: The Liberal Democrats also welcome the improvements in the Bill. We still think it is capable of further improvement, but we recognise that not too much will happen during the next five or six hours.
The balance between the purity and isolation of the commissioners and their knowledge of the real world must be struck carefully. In Committee, we said a fair amount about poachers and gamekeepers. I think there are some advantages in having commissioners who know what poaching is about: it may be a mistake to choose those who are pure as the driven snow and have no connection with the real life of political parties, to the exclusion of people with some awareness of the wool being pulled over their eyes. We should not necessarily seek to remove such people entirely from the political sphere.
I welcome the improvements making it explicit that commissioners must not have active and immediate party political associations. However, I do not regard it as a disadvantage for them to know what the real world of politics is about, as a result of their experience of voluntary and other work.
I also welcome the creation of the Parliamentary Parties Panel. It formalises, and perhaps makes more transparent, a process that in any event takes place to some extent in relation to the political parties collectively and the Home Office, in the context of electoral and boundary issues and a range of other matters relating to the exercise of functions by political parties.
The concerns of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) are probably misplaced in that regard, because we will have a more transparent and open system. I hope the Minister will not just concede that the Freedom of Information Bill may have a bearing on the matter, but be inclined to give an assurance that the Home Office will bear that aspect very much in mind when establishing the commission and looking at the commissioners' draft terms of reference and action plans. After all, the Minister and the Home Secretary will have to have regard to all those matters.
The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) spoke of the possibility of information leaking at local party level if we allowed people both to be members of political parties—perhaps office holders—and to work for the Electoral Commission. Only a few months ago, a party that I attended—not a political party—came to an abrupt, hushed halt when a perfectly normal member of the party-going population said, when asked what she did, "I am a VAT inspector". It changed the context in which discussions were taking place, and I suppose it is just possible that certain employees of the Electoral Commission might have the same effect. However, I am certain that the VAT inspector would neither have, nor for a moment consider using, information that was relevant in the wider world. Surely, the British experience of public service is that we are remarkably successful at walling off our professional duties from our social and recreational duties. No one supposes that income tax or VAT inspectors will be particularly prone to spook their neighbours, or to take unfair advantage of information that they come across. I would have thought that we might be able to rely likewise on employees of the Electoral Commission.
Again, I make the point about poachers and gamekeepers. I am not by any means advocating that most employees of the Electoral Commission should finish up as treasurers of one or other political party, but it is not necessarily wholly bad that the people employed by the commission know what the real world of political activism is about. Again, as we discussed in Committee on several occasions, the reality is that most politics is not big politics, carried out with mega-millions. It is carried out in people's back rooms with post office accounts, small trustee savings accounts and co-operative bank accounts. If the total income is in three figures, it is a success. For that world of political activity, it is wholly desirable that the Electoral Commission should have its feet on the ground and know where real party political activity takes place.
Therefore, we believe that the Bill has been improved. Some more improvements need to be made, but we need to recognise that, throughout its passage, there has been

good co-operation between the political parties, both at this end of the building and at the other. I hope that future improvements—a new generation of the Bill—will in due course emerge, based on practical experience, but, in the meantime, we wish the Bill well in its move forward.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: I thank the hon. Members for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) and for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) for their indications that they believed that the Government had listened and moved. It is important, in so far as we can, to agree how to frame the legislation; it should have broad cross-party support.
I agree with both those hon. Gentlemen and with the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). The Electoral Commission will recognise that each of the main parties in the House has indicated—I am sure with the support of those from Scotland and Northern Ireland—that the operation of the Electoral Commission and, indeed, of the Parliamentary Parties Panel should be conducted in a way that has due and proper regard for the need for openness, so that those who may be interested in their affairs will know what is happening. I am sure that those bodies will read the text of the debate and recognise that that view is shared throughout the House.
Comments were attributed to Lord Bassam. If I recollect rightly, what he was saying was that, in relation to Northern Ireland, there would be a perception, because of the circumstances there, that the information that was given to a particular state organisation might get into the wrong hands; he felt that there would be a fear of that and a perception that it was likely, even though it may not be either likely or possible. As far as I am aware, he did not suggest that commission staff would act other than with appropriate honesty, integrity and impartiality.

Mr. Grieve: To make the matter clear, I did not welcome the Government's stance on Northern Ireland. Indeed, the whole thrust of the Bill is about disclosure, but it seemed that there was an inconsistency between the Government's viewing that matter with anxiety and not viewing the matter here with anxiety, in terms of staff getting hold of information that they should not have. I accept that staff may not misuse the information, but if there is a perception that there are members of staff working for the Electoral Commission who see sensitive material who are themselves officers in their local associations, it will bring the commission into disrepute. The Government seem to be anxious about that in the Northern Ireland context, even though, as I have stressed, in the Northern Ireland context, I am not happy with what the Government are doing about not having disclosure.

Mr. O'Brien: I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying. The Northern Ireland context is, as with all too many issues, somewhat different and particular, but we have no reason to believe that an ordinary member of staff who happens to carry a party membership card for whatever political party is likely to behave improperly, any more than we have to believe that a civil servant is likely to behave improperly. Indeed, on all the evidence that we have, they are very unlikely to behave in that way.
To reassure the hon. Gentleman, a member of the commission staff cannot be an officer of a party. That is a high-profile position. He certainly cannot be a treasurer or a senior person who has responsibility for accounting the activities of a political party. It would be against the
restrictions that, I hope, the Electoral Commission will place—just as they are placed on many civil servants—on political activities. There is a distinction between someone who is in a lesser position and someone who is politically active; that includes being a member of a political party's official bodies—its senior bodies, a constituency association or constituency party—and being an officer of that organisation.
That is political activity. It seems to be straightforwardly political activity, but if someone happens to carry a party or an association membership card, that does not compromise their integrity. Indeed, in many ways, it suggests that that person has an active interest in ensuring that democracy is sustained and progressed. It should not be a disqualification for believing someone has integrity that they be a member of a political party; otherwise, hon. Members would have a lot of problems, which some journalists might say we do have. However, I suspect that most hon. Members would take the view that the House, by and large, behaves with much integrity, honesty and also political affiliation.
As I have said, we are not persuaded that there is any compelling reason to bar commission staff other than senior staff from being a party member. Barring them would be a large step and could come into conflict with the European convention on human rights, as was indicated by Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish during debates in another place.
Although I appreciate that, at first glance, the functions of the commission bring into sharp relief the question of the political affiliations of its employees, on reflection, I doubt that the issue is any more acute in relation to the Electoral Commission than it is in relation to the work of any number of Government Departments or other public sector agencies.
Under the civil service code, public. servants are expected to observe strict standards of probity and confidentiality in their work. It will be for the Electoral Commission itself to determine the standards of conduct that apply to its staff. However, I have absolutely no doubt that the commission's rules on participation in political activities and the duty to be impartial in the discharge of its functions will be at least equivalent to those applying to civil servants.
I therefore urge hon. Members not to press their amendments in this group.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 2 and 3 agreed to.

APPOINTMENT OF ELECTORAL COMMISSIONERS AND COMMISSION CHAIRMAN

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 2, line 46, at end insert—

("(3A) A person may not be appointed as an Electoral Commissioner if the person—

(a) is a member of a registered party;
(b) is an officer or employee of a registered party or of any accounting unit of such a party;
(c) holds a relevant elective office (within the meaning of Schedule 6); or
(d) has at any time within the last ten years—

(i) been such an officer or employee as is mentioned in paragraph (b), or
(ii) held such an office as is mentioned in paragraph (c), or
(iii) been named as a donor in the register of donations reported under Chapter III or IV of Part IV.")

Clause 5

REVIEWS OF ELECTORAL AND POLITICAL MATTERS

Lords amendment: No. 4, in page 3, line 36, after ("17(1)") insert

(", (Transfer of functions of Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland)(1)")

The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 5 to 11, 13 to 25, 331, 337, 346, 369, 374, 375, 637, 659, 660 and 662.

Mr. Tipping: The amendments in this group relate to the commission's general and electoral boundary functions. However, the changes to clauses 13 to 18 are perhaps the most significant. Their purpose is to strengthen the independence of the Electoral Commission in discharging its boundary review functions and to ensure that the full benefits arising from the transfer of those functions are realised.
8.30 pm
When the Bill left the House, it provided for the functions of the various parliamentary and local government boundary commissions to be transferred to the Electoral Commission, and required the commission to make arrangements for those functions to be exercised by the relevant territorial boundary committee. The amendments considerably improve on those arrangements.
Previously, the arrangements placed responsibility for the discharge of all boundary review functions in the hands of the four boundary committees and not the Electoral Commission as a whole. However, it is essential that the commission should exercise effective strategic oversight of the work of its four boundary committees. It is only by so doing that the full benefits of the merger of the parliamentary and local government commissions—improved efficiency, and greater effectiveness and coherence in the review of all boundaries from ward level to Westminster constituencies—can be realised.
The amendments also deal with the relationship between the Electoral Commission and Ministers. In establishing the commission, we have sought to make it as independent of the Government of the day as our constitutional arrangements will allow. In keeping with that status, the commission should be allowed to get on with its boundary review functions with a minimum of interference from Ministers.
To remedy those deficiencies, the amendments give effect to a number of changes. First, they allow for clearer allocation of responsibilities between the Electoral Commission and the four boundary committees. The commission as a whole will have overall responsibility for keeping parliamentary constituencies and local government electoral arrangements under review. It will then fall to the boundary committees to undertake the detailed task of conducting boundary reviews in accordance with any statutory rules and any directions issued by the commission.
On completion of a particular review, a boundary committee would make its recommendation to the commission. The commission then would have the power to accept those recommendations in whole or in part, or to reject them in whole or in part, and to require the boundary committee to undertake a further review or part review. It will also be open to the commission to modify the recommendations of a boundary committee with the agreement of the committee.

Mr. Bercow: The hon. Gentleman is a study in emollience, and his mellifluous tones are usually sufficient to reassure most, if not all, right hon. and


hon. Members. A moment ago, he referred to the minimum of ministerial interference. I am a suspicious fellow, and I should be grateful if he elaborated on that minimum.

Mr. Tipping: I shall try to be emollient and move on to the next part of my speech, which I hope will satisfy the hon. Gentleman.
The second main change is the removal of the Secretary of State's power, under section 4(1) of the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986, to modify the recommendations for changes to parliamentary constituency boundaries. It would remain a matter for both Houses of Parliament to accept or reject those recommendations. The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) will see that, in parliamentary constituencies, we are taking this opportunity to remove the Secretary of State from the equation. I think that an important step forward.
The third step forward is for the Electoral Commission to have full responsibility for making changes to local authority electoral boundaries. In particular, the commission itself would make the necessary statutory instrument to give effect to recommendations made by one of its boundary committees. That is a further distancing of ministerial involvement.
Finally, structural or administrative reviews of local authority boundaries would be undertaken by the Electoral Commission in response to a request from the Secretary of State. In such cases, the decision whether to implement the commission's recommendations will remain with the Secretary of State, in recognition of the Government's legitimate interests in ensuring that there is effective local government.

Mr. Alasdair Morgan: Lords amendment No. 11 quite sensibly specifies that the boundary committees should have a member from the appropriate country who has some experience of local government. If the provisions of the Scotland Act 1998 are not amended, any changes to Westminster parliamentary constituencies in Scotland would automatically apply also to constituencies for the Scottish Parliament. Equally, we should insist that a member of the commission should have some experience of Scottish parliamentary matters.

Mr. Tipping: That takes me back to a point that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State made earlier this evening. To only a limited extent can we prescribe in regulation—in law—what needs to be done. However, I am mindful of the hon. Gentleman's point. It is the intention to ensure that electoral bodies have a wide range of membership involving local government and the various parts of the United Kingdom. I hope that that will satisfy him. I shall ensure that his views are drawn fairly soon to the attention of the new commission when it is established, if Parliament agrees.
I thought that the hon. Gentleman would take me on to some Scottish questions, and I shall deal with them now. The new clause that would be inserted by Lords amendment No. 20 confers powers on Scottish Ministers to transfer to the commission one or more of the functions of the Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland. The new clause broadly mirrors the equivalent arrangement for England and Wales. I doubly emphasise

that, as local government is a devolved matter, the decision whether or to what extent to exercise the powers in the new clause will rest entirely with Scottish Ministers. Likewise in Wales, responsibility rests with the National Assembly for Wales.
The only significant changes made to the general functions of the commission are made by Lords amendments Nos. 6 and 9. These amendments confer on Scottish Ministers the power to extend the commission's functions in clauses 9 and 12. These are the functions of providing advice and guidance and of undertaking voter education programmes so that they cover local government elections in Scotland. I emphasise again that it is a matter entirely for Scottish Ministers.

Mr. Grieve: We welcome the amendments. We welcome especially the fact that measures have been introduced to allow the Scottish Executive and Parliament, if they so wish, to sign up. We discussed the matter in Committee, and it seemed to make eminent sense. This is an example of the Government having listened carefully to various representations, and the Bill has undoubtedly been improved in the process.

Mr. Salmond: It is interesting that the Minister gracefully introduced the Scottish sections of the amendments but without substantial explanation. That makes it all the more surprising that a Scottish Officer is not present to explain them, in addition to the Home Office Minister. One of the Ministers in the Scotland Office, whose functions and roles are hard to define now, might have come along to add his or her voice to those of Scottish colleagues.
We have been told by the Minister that these are matters for the Scottish Executive and Scottish Ministers in Edinburgh. That is of scant consolation when the same Ministers and the same Executive have recently changed unilaterally the date of the next Scottish local government elections. It is the first change of its nature, without consultation, that I can remember in recent political history.
I shall focus on the role of Scottish Ministers and that of the Electoral Commission in taking on board the Scottish role and Scottish sensitivities. I advance the argument that the amendments take us down the wrong track. We should be following the track that would lead to a separate Scottish electoral commission. We have had some experience of an electoral commission functioning. There was a voluntary commission, chaired by Professor Anthony King, which supervised the Scottish elections last year. It tried to bring into effect the recommendations of the Neill committee. It provided for the first time some of the measures that are outlined in the Bill in terms of disclosure of donations to the various political parties.
I have here the returns relating to various political parties, as contained in the disclosures. They show why the Government have chosen to go down the wrong road of trying to make a UK electoral commission sensitive to Scottish issues, when the right road would have been to create a separate Scottish electoral commission.
The returns show that, of the major donations to the Scottish Conservative and Unionist party, two came from London, two from Doncaster, and one each from Essex and Birmingham. The returns for the Scottish Labour party show that four substantial donations came from London, and one from Kent.
Most remarkable are the returns for the Scottish Liberal Democrats. They show that out of total donations of £216,500 made in the course of the Scottish election campaign, no less than £200,000 came from the Liberal Democrat party's London headquarters in Cowley street. The only donation from Scotland that the party managed to raise in the entire election campaign was £16,500 from Mr. Maitland Mackie, of Rothienorman in Aberdeenshire. That gentleman produces excellent ice cream, and had the distinction of running a poor third to my good self in Banff and Buchan in the election. It hardly seems that his money was well invested.
I make that point to show that, if the Government's logic were consistent, they would establish a separate Scottish electoral commission. The logic of the Government—although not of the Neill Committee—as set out in the Bill is that the qualification for being a donor is to be on the electoral register. Applying that logic to a Scottish election means that there should be a Scottish electoral commissioner making sure that all donors to parties in a Scottish election should be on the Scottish electoral register.
The Government may have chosen not to go down that path with the Bill for a number of reasons. Perhaps they want to maintain the subsidies that the London branches of the Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties give to their Scottish appendages. Those party appendages might be called subsidy junkies, but they are the only ones that exist in Scotland.

Mr. Brady: I have been following the hon. Gentleman's remarks with interest. Has his own party ever received significant donations from any famous actors who, for tax purposes, were not resident in Scotland?

Mr. Salmond: My party has declared the donations that it has received from Mr. Sean Connery—

Dr. Julian Lewis: Sir Sean Connery.

Mr. Salmond: Discussing the process by which Mr. Connery eventually became Sir Sean Connery could take me down a completely different path. However, we disclosed the contributions that he made voluntarily, and we are proud of that. The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) is wrong to suppose that Sir Sean Connery does not pay tax in this country: on the contrary, he pays tax on his earnings in this country. I was going to say that I estimate that he probably pays a lot more in tax than all Labour Members combined, but the truth is that he probably pays more than all hon. Members in total.
My party has always argued that people who openly declare an interest—as Sir Sean certainly has in Scotland—should be absolutely entitled to give donations to the political party of their choice. Furthermore, I can assure the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West that that was the opinion of Lord Neill too. I asked him a question on that point in a recorded conversation, and he said that he did not intend to prevent people such as Sir Sean Connery from giving money to the Scottish National party.
If the Government intend to prevent that from happening, the Minister representing the Home Office should say so. Any remarks to that effect would get an interesting reception in Scotland, which might even parallel the reception of the Government's previous attempt to deprive Sir Sean of his knighthood.
If the Government argue that anyone with an interest in Scottish politics should be able to make donations in a Scottish election—as the London offices of the main political parties have done—that would be fair enough. However, the same argument would have to be made about United Kingdom elections and people with a legitimate interest, regardless of whether they were in the European Union or elsewhere in the world. The Government cannot have the bun and the penny. If the qualification is to be on the electoral register, there should be a separate electoral commission for Scotland. We should end the process by which the Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties are subsidised to the hilt in Scottish elections from their London headquarters.
8.45 pm
If the Government want to pursue the argument that these organisations have a legitimate interest in a Scottish election, they must open up the UK process to people with a legitimate interest, as originally proposed by Lord Neill. He did not argue that people had to be on the electoral roll, merely that they could be on the electoral roll as UK citizens if they chose to exercise that right.
Why does the Minister believe that this attempt to direct Scottish Ministers—to influence a commission to make it more sensitive to Scottish requirements—is a better route to take than having a Scottish electoral commission which will be able to set its requirements under the direction of the Scottish Parliament?

Mr. Tipping: First, I welcome the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve). He has pursued this issue before, and recognises that this is an improvement to the Bill. He said that Scottish Ministers could use the provision "if they so wished". In a sense, that is the essence of the argument—nothing in these amendments prohibits or restricts the Scottish Ministers. This is a purely enabling matter; it will be up to Scottish Ministers whether they take the matter forward.
The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) made a number of points in his interesting contribution. Let me take the underlying point first. He made it clear that things might be done differently in Scotland. I say hooray—that is what devolution is about. If political parties in Scotland have had a good experience with a voluntary electoral commission, we should look, listen and understand.
My position is clear: I think that this traditional Parliament will have a lot to learn from the new emerging Parliament and Assemblies. There will be differences, and I am not ashamed or surprised to say that eventually the distance between the way in which we work will diverge. In a sense, that is what devolution is about.

Mr. Salmond: The Minister, in his typically generous and friendly way, is attempting to disarm the argument. The point remains, however, that even if every member of the Scots Parliament voted to establish a separate Scottish electoral commission, that would not be allowed under


the discretion in the Bill. The discretion applies not to establishing a separate commission but to affecting the commission prescribed in the Bill. Is that not the case, despite the Minister's generous words?

Mr. Tipping: That is clearly the case. I was coming to the harder point second. The hon. Gentleman accused me of trying to disarm him; I was giving him the soft punch before the hard punch. The hard punch is quite clear—the bulk of the commission's work is around reserved matters. That is why we have chosen to go this way.
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that there is not the power in the Bill for an electoral commission for Scotland. If I were to look into my crystal ball, I think that I would see us returning to this discussion at some point in time. The hon. Gentleman's party might want to discuss the speed and rate of change and movement towards that objective.
I cannot satisfy the hon. Gentleman any further. These are discretionary matters. The Scottish Ministers can ask the commission to act in local government matters but there is no prospect, as the hon. Gentleman clearly recognises—and as the Bill recognises, because these are reserved matters—for a separate electoral commission for Scotland.

Mr. Salmond: If the qualification for being a donor is inclusion on the electoral register, is there not an anomaly if, in a Scottish election, a person is not required to be on the Scottish electoral register in order to be a dominant donor to three of the political parties in the House?

Mr. Tipping: At the end of the day, Scottish elections are a matter for the Scottish Parliament and for the Scottish parties; it is not a matter for Westminster. The Bill is about establishing the Electoral Commission. My strong point to the hon. Gentleman—as he clearly realises—is that the bulk of the commission's work will be on reserved matters.

Mr. Salmond: The Minister's views and mine are going to diverge. The Bill is not merely about establishing an Electoral Commission; it sets out in statute who is and who is not a qualifying donor. As the Bill states that a qualifying donor must be on the electoral register, will the Minister tell us why, in a Scottish election, a person is not required to be listed on the Scottish electoral register?

Mr. Tipping: The amendments are about the Electoral Commission. That is what we are discussing. The Electoral Commission's work is on reserved matters. I realise that I cannot satisfy the hon. Gentleman on that point, although he clearly understands the situation. Things will change over time. I suspect that, as devolution continues, such matters will be re-examined—indeed I have no doubt about that. Whether we shall ultimately reach the point that the hon. Gentleman wants—and at what speed—is a matter for the crystal ball of other people.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 5 to 25 agreed to, one Special Entry.

Clause 20

Mr. Mike O'Brien: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 27 to 33, 40, 41, 46 to 51, 53 to 55, 57, 61 and 62, 68 and amendment (a) thereto, 69, 71 and amendments (b) and (a) in lieu thereof, 73 to 79, 81 to 83, 97 and 131, 132 and amendment (a) in lieu thereof, 133 and amendments (a) to (g) thereto, 134, 142, 149, 213, 214, 218, 265, 267, 329, 333, 339, 343, 345, 376 to 378, 380, 390, 407, 436, 437, 487, 488, 541, 542 and 642.

Mr. O'Brien: The changes made by this group of amendments to the arrangement for the registration of political parties are primarily the result of the special provisions made for Northern Ireland in clause 65. Accordingly, to understand the amendments, it may be of help to the House if I set out why the Bill contains such special provisions.
I realise, of course, that some hon. Members will have concerns about certain aspects of the provisions that we are discussing. I understand that; on many Northern Ireland issues, it is extremely difficult to secure agreement across the spectrum of opinion in that part of our country. In those circumstances, Parliament must always consider the arguments with great care, to try to find a way—honestly and with integrity—to establish a set of provisions that can command support in the House.
In an ideal world, we should not need special provisions for Northern Ireland parties. However, as the House and Northern Ireland know, we have to face the realities of politics in Northern Ireland. It is undoubtedly true that the peace process has made several welcome advances since the Neill committee reported in October 1998, but the special factors identified by the committee have not disappeared during the intervening two years.
The Committee considered at some length the impact in Northern Ireland of its proposals for the disclosure of donations of more than £5,000 and the ban on foreign funding. At the Committee's public hearings in Belfast, it heard evidence on disclosure from both sides of the community that, notwithstanding the Good Friday agreement, it would be unsafe to disclose the names of donors to Northern Ireland political parties.
Public disclosure of donations would be likely to have one of two consequences. The first possibility is that donors might face intimidation, discrimination or worse. The second and perhaps more likely possibility is that party supporters would simply stop making donations for fear of the consequences. I emphasise that such fears were voiced by nationalists and Unionists. John Stephenson of the SDLP told the Neill committee:
You should be aware that already many potential donors to political parties here do not donate due to fear. Even with the huge endorsement of the Good Friday Agreement, the problem with public declaration will still exist.
That is reported at paragraph 6548 of volume II of the Neill committee report.
Much the same sentiments were expressed by Jack Allen of the Ulster Unionist Council. At paragraphs 6667 and 6717 of the Neill committee report, he said:
Over a number of years, because of the political situation in Northern Ireland, people did not want to be identified with political parties… because of the risk factor in Northern Ireland…We are happy enough to put forward those people who give us donations of £5,000 or more but it would be important for them that it was kept private or confidential to an electoral committee or something like that, rather than be made public in the press.
Such considerations appear to have led the Neill committee to recommend a temporary exemption from the reporting requirement for donations made to political parties in Northern Ireland.
The committee separately considered the effect of a ban on foreign funding in the context of Northern Ireland. They concluded that citizens of the Republic of Ireland must be able to continue to make donations to parties in Northern Ireland. They took the view that it was consistent with both the Ireland Act 1949 and the Good Friday agreement for Irish citizens to be able to contribute to Northern Ireland parties. As a result, the Neill committee recommended that
in relation to donations to political parties in Northern Ireland, the definition of a permissible source should also include a citizen of the Republic of Ireland resident in the Republic subject to compliance with the Republic's Electoral Act 1997.
We have run with the spirit, rather than the letter, of that recommendation.
We concluded first that it would not be practicable to require a United Kingdom party to satisfy itself that a donor complies with legislation in a separate state. Secondly, it is the Government's view that such a safeguard would not amount to much. The Neill committee recognised that there could be no effective way to prevent funds from outside the republic, where there is no ban on foreign donations, from reaching parties in Northern Ireland. It would be pointless to imagine that confining the exemption to citizens of the republic would prevent donations from the United States or elsewhere reaching parties in Northern Ireland.
In the light of that very clear analysis by the Neill committee, the Government remain firmly of the view that Northern Ireland parties should be exempt from the controls on donations in part IV for an initial period of four years. We fully accept that any such exemption should be regularly reviewed. That is why we tabled amendment No. 128 in another place to limit to four years the duration of any order made under clause 65.
Having concluded that there is a continuing need for those special provisions for Northern Ireland, it was necessary to find a satisfactory definition of a Northern Ireland party. The Bill as introduced in the House defined a Northern Ireland party as a registered party with either one or more Members of the House elected for a Northern Ireland constituency, or with one or more members elected to the Northern Ireland Assembly. We recognise that that definition is too narrowly drawn.
Any registered party that contests elections in Northern Ireland should be able to benefit from the exemption from the provisions in part IV. In extending the definition of a Northern Ireland party for the purposes of clause 65, we need to ensure that a party that operates throughout the

United Kingdom does not use the exemption from the controls on donations that will operate in Northern Ireland to circumvent a ban on foreign funding operating in the rest of the United Kingdom.
9 pm
If we simply provided that any party or part of a party operating in Northern Ireland was exempt from controls on donations, a Northern Ireland constituency association of a United Kingdom-wide party could accept a foreign donation and pass it to its London headquarters. My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) alluded to that possibility during our consideration of the Bill earlier this year.
To guard against Northern Ireland parties acting as a conduit for foreign donations making their way to Great Britain, it has been necessary to create what has been called a fire wall between parties operating in Northern Ireland and those operating in the rest of the United Kingdom. The majority of the amendments in this group are primarily dedicated to that end. They provide for the existing register of political parties maintained by Companies House to be replaced by the new registers—one for parties contesting elections in Great Britain and one for those contesting elections in Northern Ireland. Any UK-wide party would need to be on both registers. The fire wall to which I referred is provided by amendment No. 128, which prevents a party on the Great Britain register from accepting a donation from a party on the Northern Ireland register.
The changes in the registration scheme also deal with what has been referred to as the Scottish Green party problem. Owing to the way in which the Registration of Political Parties Act 1998 operates, the Scottish Green party, which is separate from the Green party in England and Wales, has been unable to register. Under the new registration scheme, a party registered on the Great Britain register could confine its registration to one or two parts of Great Britain. Another party with a similar name could then register in the other part of Great Britain.
The circumstances in Northern Ireland have required this Parliament to accept less than entirely satisfactory solutions to complex problems. We appreciate that some people would have preferred other options. We have, as honestly and straightforwardly as we could, tried to provide laws that deal with the particular circumstances of the political funding of parties in Northern Ireland. Therefore, I commend the amendments to the House.

Mr. MacKay: You will have noted, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that there are amendments in my name and those of the Leader of the Opposition and of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), on behalf of the Ulster Unionists, on the amendment paper. We can outline our position simply and straightforwardly. Wherever possible, Northern Ireland should be treated exactly the same as the rest of the United Kingdom. It is part of the UK and the Belfast agreement, which we support, underpins that fact. So, for electoral purposes, it should be treated in the same way as the rest of the UK.
We would always need to be persuaded of any change from what is the law in Scotland, England and Wales. We are persuaded in respect of disclosure. As the Minister pointed out, and as the evidence submitted in Belfast confirms, there is a potential security danger in identifying


donors to certain political parties. Doing so might put those people at risk. While there is still a terrorist threat in Northern Ireland and there is still violence, it is important that full disclosure, which we would normally prefer, does not apply to Northern Ireland.
We see no reason for foreign donations to be allowed in Northern Ireland when all the main political parties in the House have agreed—following the Neill recommendations—that they are no longer appropriate. As the Minister knows, the Conservative party stated clearly, ahead of Neill, that it would no longer accept donations from overseas. We believe passionately that that approach should be adopted in the rest of the United Kingdom, including by all the Northern Ireland parties. With the greatest respect to the Minister, he said nothing in his opening remarks to persuade me or my colleagues that we should take a different view.
I regret to reach the conclusion that members of the Northern Ireland Office have put pressure on the Home Office to ensure that exemptions are available for Northern Ireland political parties. They have done so as yet another sop to Sinn Fein-IRA. Make no mistake about it, the sole reason for treating Northern Ireland differently is so that Sinn Fein-IRA and others can receive dirty money from the United States of America. I believe that that is wrong.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. MacKay: I will when I have finished my point, because the hon. Gentleman knows a lot about this money.
I believe strongly that Sinn Fein should be treated in exactly the same way as every other party in the United Kingdom. It claims to be now a non-violent party, and I hope that that is true and that it will fully implement the Belfast agreement, which it is not doing at the moment. If it wishes to be considered by the House and other observers as part of the body politic and as a proper political party in the United Kingdom, it should have the same rules applied to it as apply to all the other parties in the House.

Mr. McNamara: The right hon. Gentleman referred to dirty money. To whom is he applying his remarks? Is he suggesting that they apply to the SDLP and also to the other nationalist parties that are represented in the House and that have obtained funds from the United States? He must be careful about the terms that he uses and about the implications that they have for the United States Administration. The United States has been most careful and scrupulous under both Republican and Democrat Administrations to ensure that no money to support violence comes from the United States.

Mr. MacKay: If the hon. Gentleman really believes that there is no money flowing out of the United States to support paramilitaries—both republican and so-called loyalist—he is a less close observer of the scene than he claims. There is absolutely no doubt about it; it is beyond refutation. Successive Republican and Democrat American Governments have done their best to persuade fund raisers not to pass money on, but he, I and the House know that it happens. Money that comes from the United

States to Sinn Fein, the IRA, the Real IRA and various so-called loyalist paramilitary parties and their terrorist associates is, in my view, dirty money. I know that the overwhelming majority of American citizens, the American Government and the overwhelming majority of Members of Congress are deeply embarrassed and appalled that this money comes. Many of them have done valiant work to try to ensure that it is not channelled in that way.

Mr. McNamara: The right hon. Gentleman has not replied to the point that I made about moneys going to the SDLP and elsewhere. How does he define "dirty money"? He has used a very broad brush. He should be more specific, giving us examples of cases and so on. He is condemning not only political parties in Ireland, but the American Administration for failing in their duties.

Mr. MacKay: Clearly, the hon. Gentleman failed to listen. Perhaps if I spell out my reply again in more simple terms and a little more slowly, he might pick it up this time. I clearly said that I believe that money that flows from America to paramilitary organisations and their political associates—Sinn Fein, the so-called loyalist paramilitaries and others—is dirty, tainted money. It embarrasses the American Administration, the overwhelming majority of Congressmen and the overwhelming majority of the American public. I said that last time, and I have said it again. The hon. Gentleman is at last nodding, so finally I am getting through.

Mr. McNamara: rose—

Mr. MacKay: It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman did not listen more attentively to what I said originally and to my reply. Anybody reading Hansard will see clearly what I said.

Mr. Salmond: Will the right hon. Gentleman address specifically the point about the SDLP—I hope that I said that slowly enough for him—and say that he is not defining that as dirty money from the United States?

Mr. MacKay: I am happy to do so. I never mentioned the SDLP and 1 specifically defined those whom we were discussing. Everybody knows who those are. Everybody is aware that dirty money comes, particularly from the east coast of America, through to paramilitary and related parties. That money is bad money. By agreeing to the Bill tonight, we will encourage that money to flow—

Mr. John McDonnell: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that any donation to Sinn Fein is dirty money?

Mr. MacKay: When the IRA has been committing awful atrocities in this country, any donation to Sinn Fein is most certainly dirty money. I am delighted to respond to the hon. Gentleman. I could not make that clearer. I thought that I had made it clear right from the beginning.
I was responding to the Minister and asking him to reconsider and understand why we believe that parties in Northern Ireland should be treated in exactly the same way as parties elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
I cannot but believe that the measure is another sop—another appeasement of republicans and so-called loyalist paramilitary groups. It is a huge mistake. As has been seen in the past, the more we give, the more they take. That process has not built confidence in the Belfast agreement, which we supported. If we go ahead tonight and treat Northern Ireland differently, the great majority of people in Northern Ireland will again feel that they have been let down and are being treated differently.
A further comfort measure and a sop will have been given to the men of violence. That is harmful to the process that the Minister and I very much wish to move forward. He should consider again tonight whether it is wise to treat Northern Ireland differently. We strongly believe that it is not.
I shall deal briefly with the funding of referendums. We believe that the same should apply as applies to political parties. Referendums will take place from time to time—inevitably, in Northern Ireland, on the border. That used to be called the border poll. We believe that money should not flow in from abroad for that referendum. That would be a great mistake.
The same applies to United Kingdom-wide referendums, which will have as much impact in Northern Ireland as elsewhere. Neill has been clear that, for referendums, it would be wrong for overseas money to be used. We believe that there should be consistency.
I end as I started, by saying that Northern Ireland should be treated in the same way as the rest of the United Kingdom. Those of us, including the Minister and me, who support the Belfast agreement and passionately want the process to work would do a favour to that process if we treated all the parties in Northern Ireland in the same way as the rest of the United Kingdom. To do otherwise would further undermine the process.

Mr. Trimble: It was clearly signalled during the debate on the allocation of time motion that this was likely to be the most significant topic for discussion and the most significant group of amendments. As has been suggested in the discussion so far, on the part both of the Government and of the Opposition, this group of amendments essentially deals with Northern Ireland, although a few other matters are covered. In light of that fact, it is remarkable that no representative of the Northern Ireland Office is on the Treasury Bench. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) made a similar point when we discussed an earlier group of amendments. I sympathised with his comment then, but it applies in spades to the serious issues covered by these amendments. I venture to suggest that Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office have fled the field because they are well aware of the weakness of the Government's argument. They have passed what is a poor brief on to Home Office Ministers and left them to manage as best they can.
9.15 pm
Members of different Opposition parties referred in our earlier debate to the emollient character of the comments made by the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office. Perhaps the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for North

Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), is hoping that he will get away with imitating his hon. Friend's manner, especially given the structure of his argument: he began with the one aspect of the Government's policy that has substance or ground for defence, but as he gradually moved away from that and got towards the enormity of the final result, he quickly speeded up and dashed to the finishing line in the hope that no one would notice the weakness of the arguments.
The one part of the Government's argument with any merit is the problem that the continuing threat of terrorism in Northern Ireland poses for donors who are identified. They might be intimidated or be reluctant to contribute, with the consequence that the political process in Northern Ireland—and certain parties in particular—would suffer. We understand that concern, and the Under-Secretary was right to mention it. In our evidence, my party and others drew attention to that problem, but we proposed a modest solution. We suggested that the identity of the donor should be disclosed only to the commission; it would go no further and would not be published.
We are prepared to trust the commission even though we are aware of the danger of official bodies being penetrated by the agents of terrorist organisations for the purpose of obtaining information that would enable them to threaten people. We are prepared to have a degree of disclosure that would satisfy the public need without exposing people to risk.
Rather than a solution that is proportionate to the reality of the problem, however, we have been given a set of proposals that is wholly disproportionate, which leads me to suspect that there is another reason for the measure. I am pretty certain that the genuine problem of likely intimidation or scaring off of donors has been used as an excuse to do something wholly different—to set in place an exceptional set of arrangements for Northern Ireland simply to advantage Irish nationalists.
Let me observe parenthetically that that is discriminatory. It discriminates between nationalist and non-nationalist parties in Northern Ireland, and between nationalist parties in Northern Ireland and nationalist parties in Wales and Scotland. It was said in our earlier debate that the Scottish National party has prominent and well-known donors who are resident outside the United Kingdom for most of the time. There is a Scottish diaspora, a Welsh diaspora and an Irish diaspora. Why is one treated more favourably than another? There is a serious point there.
It is not that I am arguing for further exemptions to be provided for Welsh and Scottish nationalist parties. I am simply pointing out that the Government's proposal is flawed and unfair and treats people unequally. As the Government's obligations under human rights and related legislation apply throughout the United Kingdom, and as there is an obligation under international law to treat all people within the United Kingdom equally, and as those obligations extend to political participation in elections—

Mr. Salmond: And Governments.

Mr. Trimble: Precisely. In view of those matters, the Government need to think seriously about whether their proposals can be sustained.
What justification has been offered tonight for treating Northern Ireland differently? As has been said, Northern Ireland is being treated in an exceptional manner.


I listened to the Minister and heard two things mentioned—the Ireland Act 1949 and the Belfast agreement of 1998. The Ireland Act is interesting in that it declares that Ireland is not to be treated as a foreign country. That is unusual. The substance of that legislation was that the United Kingdom refused to recognise the independence of the Republic of Ireland. Until then, the Irish free state, as it was then called, was part of Her Majesty's dominions and part of the Commonwealth. In effect, in 1949, the then Labour Government said that they would not recognise that Ireland was different and foreign and that they would treat people from Ireland as if they were British citizens the moment they entered the United Kingdom.
One might wonder whether it is appropriate today to continue to say that we do not really regard the Republic of Ireland as a foreign country, particularly in view of the constitutional provisions in the Belfast agreement, in which there is a recognition that there are two states—the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. From my point of view, one of the good things about the Belfast agreement is the fact that the Republic of Ireland recognises the existence of the United Kingdom and the territorial integrity of the entire United Kingdom. I do not say that one should rush into a precipitate re-examination of all the aspects and ramifications of the Ireland Act, but I do suggest that that is rather shaky ground on which to rely.
I see that desperate efforts have been made to rustle up another Northern Ireland Minister. The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), has now staggered through to the Front Bench, but he will have to operate bereft of support from the Northern Ireland Office. No doubt pleas for assistance are proceeding in that direction. My point was that the Ireland Act 1949 is not a particularly good basis for the Home Office to rely on.
The other point on which the Home Office relied was the Belfast agreement. I am at a loss to understand why the Minister believes that there is anything in the Belfast agreement that in any way justifies the treatment of Northern Ireland in this legislation. The Belfast agreement explicitly recognises British sovereignty in Northern Ireland, and that is also recognised by the Republic of Ireland in that agreement. Therefore, there is no clear basis for such treatment.
It is the case that the Neill recommendation was that, in relation to political parties in Northern Ireland, the definition of a permissible source should also include a citizen of the Republic of Ireland resident in the Republic of Ireland, subject to compliance with the Republic's local Act. Neill did suggest that the donations should be extended to the Republic of Ireland but no further. Neill did not recommend foreign donations generally. Because of what Neill saw as a problem, and particular circumstances with regard to the Republic of Ireland—a matter on which I disagree—Neill suggested that the Republic of Ireland could be included among permissible sources of donations. The Minister then went on to demonstrate in his argument that the Neill recommendation was unworkable. That is the substance of what the Minister said. He said that it would be impossible for a political party in the United Kingdom to determine whether a donor in the Republic of Ireland that had sent money to it had complied with the Irish electoral

Act. Furthermore, it would be impossible to tell whether money forwarded by a donor resident in the Republic of Ireland was from the Republic or had been laundered elsewhere. The Minister therefore proved that the Neill recommendation is unworkable.
The report made a recommendation which, on closer examination, turns out to be unworkable. The sensible solution would be to drop the recommendation but, having found unworkable a recommendation that was to extend to the Republic of Ireland, the Government have extended it to the whole world. That is wholly incompatible with the spirit of the Neill report. It is wrong of the Government to pray in aid the Neill report, given that they subvert it extensively in their proposals. An attempt was made to dress up as a reasonable argument a wholly unreasonable result. The Government's argument is flawed and thoroughly indefensible.
I accept the views of Members who said that the provision has been introduced simply to benefit Sinn Fein-IRA. Of course it will do that, but in fact it confers more benefit on the Social Democatic and Labour party, which may be why the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) was so anxious to defend the SDLP in that context.

Mr. McNamara: And on every issue.

Mr. Trimble: I am interested to see a Labour Member crawl out and say that his object is to defend the SDLP in every context.

Mr. McNamara: Given the SDLP's support for constitutional measures and its derision for people who indulge in violent acts to advance their policies, and given that its members are concerned with social democracy, I would be prepared on any front, on any occasion, to defend the SDLP and other parties that are prepared to do the same thing.

Mr. Trimble: I am happy to have given the hon. Member for Hull, North an opportunity to qualify and limit his blanket support for the SDLP, and to hint that that support might be available to other parties. I am glad that he is broadminded about that and we look forward to evidence of it in his future conduct.
Sinn Fein-IRA undoubtedly benefits from foreign funding, and the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) was completely justified in his comments about that, even though a misleading construction was placed on them. The money that Sinn Fein receives from foreign donations is only a small proportion of its total funding. Indeed, the greater part of its funding is very dirty money derived from racketeering in the British Isles—and possibly elsewhere. It ought to be a principal object of the Government to deal with that racketeering, if only because it produces a loss to the Treasury of at least —200 million per annum. The Government are treating the matter rather jovially, but they ought to tackle that racketeering. In that context, one is sorry to see that, some years ago, they stood down the terrorist finance unit and are only now moving in an extremely dilatory way to redeem their claims that they will act to try to deal with the finances derived from racketeering. They ought to see that the flow of dirty money into the hands of Sinn Fein-IRA and other paramilitary organisations is staunched.
The money that comes to Sinn Fein through declared channels is only a small proportion of its overall funding. By contrast, the money that the SDLP receives from the Republic of Ireland is a significant proportion of its income. However, that does not justify the provision. I say that with full respect to SDLP Members and would repeat it if any of them were in the House tonight. That party contests elections in Northern Ireland. It is organised as a Northern Ireland party and competes with other Northern Ireland parties—mine and others. I believe that I am right in saying that we are entirely dependent on money raised from voluntary membership and donors in Northern Ireland. Finding ourselves competing with parties that raise funds overseas would involve the creation of a very unlevel playing field. That is why I find the proposals extremely objectionable. They have the potential to distort the operation of the democratic process in Northern Ireland.
9.30 pm
My point may become clearer if we consider the position with regard to referendums, to which the provisions will apply. There could be a referendum on Northern Ireland's constitutional future, which we used to call a border poll—a poll to decide whether Northern Ireland should remain part of the United Kingdom or become part of the Republic of Ireland. In such a referendum, from which many consequences would flow, my hon. Friends and I, and those in other Unionist parties, would campaign on one side with what limited financial resources we have. And on the other side? Why, the parties and persons arguing for an all-Ireland state would be supported by money from the Irish Government and from other interests in the Republic of Ireland and perhaps further afield. In terms of finance, that would create an extremely unfair situation. I wonder whether the Government have specifically considered that.
I have not followed closely the arguments made in another place, and I do not know whether that point was developed or whether the Government had any answer to it. I want to establish tonight whether they have any clear answer to the wholly unfair situation that would pertain in the event of a border poll. Inevitably, substantial Government money would flow from the Irish Government campaigning for a particular result, but there would not be equivalent assistance on the other side. Or would there? We want an answer from the Government, because that would draw out the unfairness of the proposals.
A further objection goes to the heart of the matter. I referred earlier to my exchange with the Under-Secretary about who said what and when. Way back in June 1998, when my party first gave evidence to the Neill committee on this matter, we made it clear that we wished to be treated in the same way as parties in the rest of the United Kingdom. There is a fundamental point at stake here. Two registers have been created—the GB register and an NI register. Parties that extend to the whole of the United Kingdom are told that, as a matter of law, they must now be chopped in two or treated as two parties and that there will be elaborate controls on the movement of funds and separate reporting requirements. In terms of party organisation, a barrier has been put up

across the Irish sea. We are being treated as if we are not part of the United Kingdom. That is fundamentally wrong and deeply offensive to us. I cannot stress that strongly enough.
Insult was added to injury when, in another place, the noble Lord who has the misfortune to speak for the Government tried to justify the proposals by saying that
politics in Northern Ireland is not yet conducted on quite the same basis as it is in Great Britain.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 10 October 2000; Vol. 617, c. 246.]
That is an interesting turn of phrase. It suggests that it is rather a bad thing that politics in Northern Ireland is not yet conducted on the same basis as in Great Britain. Furthermore, the phrase "not yet conducted" implies that the speaker wished that it was. That person, who by implication suggests that it is a bad idea that politics in Northern Ireland is not yet conducted on the same basis as in Great Britain and that it would be a good thing if it were so conducted, introduced and defended proposals that will put obstacles in the way, deepen the difference and make resolving that difference more difficult.
I would love politics in Northern Ireland to be conducted on the same basis as in the rest of the United Kingdom. I would like social life generally to be conducted on the same basis as that of the rest of the United Kingdom. I should like the special circumstances that necessitate exceptions in measures in order to protect individuals from threat to disappear. Consequently, my hon. Friends and I must treat with abhorrence provisions that drive a deeper wedge, because they are contrary to the spirit of the agreement that the Under-Secretary prayed in aid when trying to slip the proposals under our noses. The proposals, which are thoroughly bad, are inconsistent with the Good Friday agreement.

Mr. McNamara: The right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) spoke as though his party and the situation that he represents were normal in the United Kingdom. They are not. Northern Ireland is the only part of the United Kingdom where a sizeable proportion of the population identifies with a culture and a Government who are different from those of the rest of the United Kingdom. Scottish and Welsh nationalists may support an independent Scotland or an independent Wales, but they do not look to a country that is outside their boundaries. Northern Ireland is different because a large part of the population looks to Dublin as much as an even larger part looks to Westminster.

Mr. Trimble: The hon. Gentleman is trying to make an unsustainable distinction. There is a separatist party in Northern Ireland and a separatist party in Scotland. I am not sure whether that is true of Wales; I shall leave Welsh Members to speak for themselves. It is therefore baloney to try to distinguish between one lot of separatists and another on the grounds that the hon. Gentleman suggests.

Mr. McNamara: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman misses my point. Nationalists in Scotland and Wales look to their own boundaries. However, as a result of events in Ireland in the 1920s—I shall not go into them in great detail—Northern Ireland is different. A group looks outside current boundaries in Northern Ireland to Dublin as the place to which they direct their allegiance, while the current majority offer their allegiance to Westminster. Consequently, legislation to deal with the position in Northern Ireland must be very different.
I mentioned the SDLP earlier. By all accounts, which no one has challenged, that party supports constitutional measures and does not support violence; its members argue for consent. Nevertheless, they do not see the future of Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom. We have to deal with parties that hold that view. We shall examine that in detail later when we consider another amendment.
On raising money, the SDLP is a small party in the United Kingdom. It does not share the advantages of other parties. Perhaps the Ulster Unionist party does not share them—I doubt that; it has the support of The Daily Telegraph. Nevertheless, the SDLP has a point of view that it must advance. Its members therefore look for support outside the United Kingdom. If we know that the support comes from the Republic of Ireland or the United States, and it is properly monitored and declared, there is no point in our saying that it should not be received.
Irish nationalism has traditionally been able to sustain itself in the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries through support from the Irish diaspora.
I agree to some extent with the right hon. Member for Upper Bann, in that moneys have been raised by dubious means—through robberies, falsification and fraud. That, of course, should be jumped upon immediately.
I believe that the Government of the United States, and the Governments of many other countries where there is an Irish diaspora, have been active in preventing money from being used to support violence and the incorporation of violence in Northern Ireland or, indeed, the Republic. When countries such as the United States, Australia, New Zealand and Canada use their means to prevent money from being used for the perpetration of violence, they should be supported, as should their populations. If it is for beneficial means, or constitutional means, why should not people be able to support a degree of change in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Robert Walter: Does the hon. Gentleman fundamentally disagree with Lord Fitt, the former SDLP leader who sat in the House of Commons as a representative of that party? He said in the other place the other day:
The Government are not expressing the view of the vast majority of the people in the island of Ireland by permitting contributions to be brought from America to support the different factions in the IRA—and making excuses for doing so…I know from my experience at the SDLP's yearly functions in the Republic that the amount that we received from people there to help our political objectives would not bankrupt the exchequer.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 27 November 2000; Vol. 619, c. 1119.]

Mr. McNamara: Alas poor Gerry, I know him well. He is still a friend, I hope. I have great admiration for a man who stood up to what Unionism was doing in Northern Ireland in the 1960s and 1970s, and who stood up to the violence perpetrated against him by elements of the provisional IRA. Not a word of what the hon. Gentleman quoted. however, attacks my argument.
I do not believe that the money coming to the SDLP would break the exchequer. Moreover, I believe that at a time when Sinn Fein has been recognised by Her Majesty's Government, and indeed by the Opposition, as a legitimate party in Northern Ireland, and at a time when we are trying to gain support—in different ways—for the continuation of Sinn Fein's constitutional activities, we should not try to confuse the past with the present. We should recognise

the role that some Sinn Fein members are taking, very courageously, in opposing such organisations as Continuity IRA and Real IRA, and trying to ensure that their own organisation honours its undertakings to observe and maintain the ceasefire. Rather than attacking them, the Opposition should support them.

Mr. Salmond: Do the hon. Gentleman's arguments about the legitimacy of donations from the Irish diaspora also apply to the Scottish diaspora?

Mr. McNamara: Yes, and also to the Welsh diaspora.
The real problem in regard to the Bill is that the sleaze, crime and filth that have been associated with all sorts of organisations seeking to influence Government, appointments and decisions have caused a lack of recognition of those in the Scottish diaspora, the Welsh diaspora, the Irish diaspora and, indeed, the English diaspora, who want ordinary, decent politics to be conducted without huge corporations—great organisations—seeking to influence decisions with the money they put into political parties' purses. That applies as much to the Opposition parties as it does to my party. I say as a former sponsored Member of the Transport and General Workers Union that, when we put in our money, we knew where it was going. What is more, everyone else knew where it was going. We do not know at present—it is why the legislation is necessary—what money is going where, who it is seeking to influence and what it will do.

Mr. Grieve: I take it, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman does not support the main thrust of the Bill. It is designed, with exceptions, to close off foreign funding; there are some odd exceptions, such as European companies.

Mr. McNamara: On balance, I support the Bill, but in dealing on principle with foreign funding from individuals, as opposed to corporate organisations, in some ways we have taken a sledgehammer to prevent, for example, a Scotsman living in Anguilla, an Irishman living in Australia or even an Englishman living in Bermuda from giving something to someone. Sadly, however, foreigners in Hong Kong and in other countries have brought in money—people who are not resident here and have no connection with this country or with the British islands generally have sought to use that money to gain influence. We must support the Bill, but I accept that we are using a broad brush.

Mr. Salmond: I will start with a point of levity, as much of the rest of what I have to say is by no means light-hearted. I was interested in the Minister saying that there was a specific amendment to solve what he called the Scottish Green party problem. Apparently, according to him, it was unable to be registered as a political party in 1998. I find that remarkable because it succeeded in having a Member elected to the Scots Parliament, which is one of the biggest successes that it has ever had, so the obvious lesson that we must draw is that not being registered as a political party did it absolutely no harm.
That is the only point of levity that I can find in the amendments. The Minister described them as less than satisfactory. The Government's solution to the untenable nature of the Neill committee's recommendations with
regard to the Republic of Ireland has produced what is a less than satisfactory solution. He is showing one of the greatest talents for understatement that I have ever seen in the House of Commons. He should go far with that ability if he goes on to higher office. They are not less than satisfactory—they are a total dog's breakfast.
We were told in the guillotine debate that much of the Bill was uncontroversial. This particular aspect succeeded in the other place on Monday by only 167 votes to 148, and only then because the Liberal Democrats in the other place seemed to turn turtle on what the Liberal Democrats had done in this place at earlier stages. If the other place had voted differently, the Government could have found that it was not just the air traffic control issue that was forcing them to a crisis at the end of their legislative programme.
The reason why that aspect of the Bill is so controversial has become obvious in this debate and in the earlier one. I agree with much of what the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) said about the conduct of political parties. He touched on the distinction that we should draw in considering the legitimacy of political parties. The issue should not be the politics of Northern Ireland, or whether the Government want to appease one group or another. It should not even be the politics of Scotland, Wales or England. It should be the nature of the political parties involved. The key qualification in legislation to clean up politics should be the conduct and nature of the political parties—whether they go about their business in a peaceful, democratic and constitutional manner.
What the Government have managed to do in recognising that the Neill committee was untenable is to produce legislation that will make it legal for an expatriate Irishman from the United States or elsewhere to donate money to Sinn Fein—a party that has been associated with violence—but illegal for an expatriate Scot to donate money to the Scottish National party, which has had a 70-year record of impeccable constitutional credentials. How on earth can that be fair, just or right?
If it were the Government's intention to discriminate against the Scottish National party or against Plaid Cymru, they should have said so at the outset, when the legislation was introduced and the Neill committee was formed. Moreover, the Neill committee was formed largely on the basis of the type of open declaration that the Scottish National party has consistently—for generations—supported.
The Government should have said that the committee was being formed not because Ministers were worried about the activities of Asil Nadir, Hong Kong money flowing into the Conservative party, or a million pounds going like a ping-pong ball between Bernie Ecclestone and the Labour party, but to discriminate against the Scottish National party—which, relatively, is one of the most underfunded political parties. As I said, last year we had to compete in an election with United Kingdom, London-subsidised Tory and Labour opponents who were able to spend many times what we were able to spend.
This type of legislation is the most sensitive legislation of all. It encompasses how the political process is conducted. The lesson and the message that the Government are sending out in this part of the legislation is very clear indeed.
I have known Lord MacKay of Ardbrecknish for many years. I have known him as John MacKay and debated with him many times, as I am sure you have, Mr. Speaker. I cannot recall many occasions on which I have agreed with him. However, I agreed with him on Monday when he said:
The most obvious example from my point of view is that the Irish diaspora, predominantly that in America, will be allowed to donate to Sinn Fein but the Scottish and Welsh diaspora will not be allowed to donate to the SNP or to Plaid Cymru. In that respect at least, violence has paid.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 27 November 2000; Vol. 619, c. 1114.]
That is an unarguable and uncontestable point. Ministers should be thoroughly ashamed that they are sponsoring this part of the legislation.
Taking a reasonable view of these issues, and accepting that it was not really the Government's intention when establishing the Neill committee—as I said, I have this directly from Lord Neill himself—to discriminate against the world's most famous Scot, by preventing Sir Sean Connery from giving money to the SNP, I simply ask whether the legislation was not intended to clean up Conservative politics and Labour politics.
Even my worst enemy—believe it or not, I have one or two in this place—has never accused the Scottish National party of being subject to bought influence from mysterious donors. The SNP has never been accused, not even by the Labour party, of taking cash for questions or being embroiled in the acquisition of influence. We have arrived at this unjust position because the Government have twisted the Neill committee's recommendations so that they are not only untenable, but discriminatory.
The Government's position is not only unjust, but undemocratic. I agree with the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) that their position may well be unlawful. I most certainly suspect that it will be tested as such. Every Bill in this place is no longer mistress of its own destiny, but must carry a declaration that it conforms to the European convention on human rights. Consequently, legislation should not be discriminatory between citizens of the state. Are the Government really confident that the legislation, despite carrying that declaration, is not discriminatory in the points that we are discussing? The legislation may well be unlawful.
Even at this very late stage, rather than make a mockery of the Neill committee, our trust in democratic politics and the human rights convention, the Government should think again about this aspect of the legislation.

Mr. Lembit Öpik: The Minister said that it is a slightly unsatisfactory and difficult situation. What is satisfactory is that there are Members in their places who are genuinely willing to listen to the arguments, and, I hope, willing to change their position on the basis of strong arguments. I have such arguments and I am sure that the official Opposition will not feel obliged to oppose what the Government are doing, although what they are proposing is somewhat risky.
The tricky thing about Northern Ireland is that a different sort of politics is involved. The right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay), who is sadly not in his place, said, "Wherever possible, Northern Ireland should be treated as part of the United Kingdom." I think that I quote him quite closely. That is absolutely right. I completely agree. I think that no one in the Chamber


would feel otherwise. He also said that he always needs to be persuaded when there is to be a variation from the United Kingdom law. Again, I do not think that anyone in the Chamber would question that.
Furthermore, the right hon. Gentleman cited an example salient to the debate where, in his judgment, an exemption was valid, and that was disclosure. We have had an extensive debate about that, and it seems that no one would question the importance of protecting individuals who choose to make financial contributions to political organisations in Northern Ireland, given the specific and particular threats that they might or would experience were their identities to be revealed. That was a clear and current example of an exemption from how things are done in the rest of the United Kingdom.
As I understood it, the right hon. Member for Bracknell drew a distinction between that and the international funding of parties. Although there is no difference in principle over the aspiration to have commonality in political treatment across the United Kingdom, a difference arises when it comes to judgment. In my view there is a justifiable position on pragmatic grounds that international funding should not now be banned or prevented in Northern Irish politics.
I stress that we are not talking about an exemption for Sinn Fein. That point has almost been ignored. It may work out in practice that Sinn Fein and perhaps the Social Democratic and Labour party benefit, but any political party in Northern Ireland can benefit from the exemption. It is not a pedantic point because we must recognise that in practical terms Sinn Fein, and perhaps the SDLP, have managed to secure international funding. That happens to be the reality, but there is nothing to stop any other political party in Northern Ireland from doing the same.
Having agreed that the strategic intent of what the right hon. Members for Bracknell and for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) have said is in alignment with the great majority of Members in the Chamber, we need to consider why there may be justification for one area to be handled differently in terms of international funding.
The analysis is different because there is a degree of emotive language, which is difficult to justify when challenged. When the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) challenged the right hon. Member for Bracknell about what he meant by dirty money, it was my perception that there was not a clear response and that there was some shifting of position. There are people in the United States and elsewhere who probably fund organisations that I would not, who do so in the sincere belief that they are supporting the peace process or a certain political aspiration.
It is unhelpful and irrelevant if we describe that funding as dirty money. We already have a mechanism to manage the concept of dirty money. It is called the rule of law, the courts, the police and international legal co-operation. The purpose is to try to hunt out the money that is being gleaned from drug-running and extortion, for example. It is not an absolutely effective technique in the sense that there is dirty money—we all accept that paramilitary organisations on both sides in Northern Ireland have benefited from organised crime. However, that is different from saying that every penny of international money that goes into the Northern Irish political environment is acquired through ill-gotten gains. I believe that a number

of parties in Northern Ireland have benefited from money that has been donated—sincerely—to Northern Irish political organisations.
Leaving aside the obvious connections between the north and the south of Ireland, I maintain that the right hon. Member for Upper Bann was right to point out that nationalist and republican organisations have benefited more from international funding than have unionists and loyalists. However, my second point on this subject is that the political and financial environment would not be distorted by the Bill, which would simply maintain the status quo. That status quo might not be desirable in the long run but it has existed for some time.
My third point has to do with the nature of the funding. The right hon. Member for Upper Bann rightly described the present situation as an imbalance. Although he did not say so in so many words, his implication was that the system favours nationalist and republican political groups.
However, I do not believe that the Bill presents additional obstacles that would make it harder for Northern Ireland to matriculate in the rest of the British political system. Conversely, I believe that it represents the beginning of convergence in an important area: at long last, we are enshrining in law an acceptance that things are different when it comes to political funding in Northern Ireland, compared with the rest of the UK. The crucial point is that we are imposing a time scale during which the situation must be normalised.
It is worth recalling that the Government initially intended to establish a 10-year review period. I hope that Liberal Democrat Members were to some extent influential in reducing that review period to four years. That means that there is a maximum of four years in which the question of international political funding for parties in Northern Ireland must be normalised.
In four years, if the Government want to renew the exemption, they must come to the House and justify that decision, given that allowing it to fall would normalise the situation in Northern Ireland with regard to the rest of the UK. That is a crucial point, as the default position is normalisation and convergence—not the indefinite maintenance of differentiation with regard to the rest of the UK.

Mr. Walter: Will the hon. Gentleman enlighten the House regarding his conversion on the road to Damascus? On Third Reading in March, he and his party leader voted with Conservative Members against the proposals. Has the Liberal Democrat party fundamentally changed its policy on this matter?

10 pm

Mr. Öpik: I take it that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the Bill's Report stage, rather than Third Reading. What has changed is that the Government have moved on this matter. We have caused them to move from a 10-year review period to one of four years—in other words, we have reduced by six years the period during which convergence should be achieved. Those hon. Members whom I can hear praising the Liberal Democrats for securing that reduction—and they include the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), whom I thank—are right to do so.

Mr. McNamara: I, too, congratulate the Liberal Democrats on that achievement. After the great fury that
Conservative Members displayed on this matter, no Conservative Back-Bench Member is present to support the three hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench. I leave it for the House to decide whether it was secured through boredom or the power of their arguments, but I congratulate the Liberal Democrats on what they have managed to achieve.

Mr. Öpik: No doubt Conservative Back-Bench Members are busy putting out press releases to thank the Liberal Democrats, just as the Scottish National party has done.

Mr. Grieve: The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) spoke on Report on 14 March, and set out eloquently why his party took the view that the Conservative party now takes. He said:
I do not want terrorists parties on either side of the argument in Northern Ireland to flourish, but I recognise that a significant amount of funding of some of those parties, on both sides of the divide, comes not from foreign sources but from rampant protection rackets in the Province. There are other sources of money flowing into the political body.
The hon. Gentleman concluded by saying that he would vote against the Government on the amendment that was being debated. How can the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) explain that complete volte-face?

Mr. Öpik: I may be a simple country boy with Estonian parents, but for the second time in seven days I find myself giving official Opposition Front-Bench Members a brief lesson on the politics of third alternatives and evolving a position. The difference between the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats is that sometimes we try to negotiate for a better resolution than the one brought before the House.

Mr. Grieve: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Öpik: I am on a bit of a roll, and I do not want to be interrupted. If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me for 30 seconds, I will give way to him then.
I recognise that that is a difficult concept for such a confrontational party as the official Opposition to acknowledge. I am here to do whatever is best for Northern Ireland. Sometimes that means developing one's position if, in our judgment, it is in the greater interest of peace in Northern Ireland and, more to the point, it helps it to normalise Northern Ireland with the rest of the United Kingdom, according to a time scale. History will show whether we are right or wrong. I do not need to hide that fact, because I have made the point before.

Mr. Grieve: I have noted very carefully what the hon. Gentleman has said. The hon. Member for Hazel Grove actually said of the matter:
This clause is based on the wrong underlying philosophy and the wrong legislative theory.—[Official Report, 14 March 2000; Vol. 346, c. 196.]
That seems to have nothing to do with the changes or the cosmetic adjustments presented by Government. Are we to understand that the Liberal Democrats have completely changed their view of the Bill's philosophical basis?

Mr. Öpik: I am not surprised that the hon. Gentleman is scared of the almost irresistible force of reasonable

politics coming from the Liberal Democrats. However, as the hon. Gentleman is being a little naughty with regard to my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell), I will now give way to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Stunell: It is always good to have one's words of wisdom drawn to the House's attention, not just once but twice. I said very clearly on Report that the proposals then in front of the House were not satisfactory, and we voted against them. Let us be clear: they have been changed and improved on their return to the House. Let us also be clear, however, that the Minister has acknowledged that the change is not the best job that could possibly have been done. Does my hon. Friend agree, however, that some progress is better than no progress, and nowhere is that more true than in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Öpik: I cannot say how pleased I am that my hon. Friend is explaining his position and the points that were made on behalf of us all on the previous occasion—an evening when I was busy and unable to be here to influence the debate in person.

Mr. William Thompson: Instead of the hon. Gentleman arguing that we have got a great concession and that there will be a review in four years, not 10, does not he agree that it would have been better for the Minister to come to this House and say that the arrangement will end in four years, after which there will be normality throughout the whole of the United Kingdom? The chances are that when the review takes place, the Government will argue that matters should continue as they are.

Mr. Öpik: There are two answers to that. First, I said that the default position, as I understand it—the unusual and exceptional arrangement, the exemption in Northern Ireland—will fall unless it is reaffirmed by the House. I hope that the Minister will confirm that in his summation.
Secondly, these matters could well be in the Liberal Democrats' hands. There will be an election, at which point I confidently believe that the new Liberal Democrat Prime Minister will consult me, should he provide me with the Northern Ireland Cabinet position that I hanker for, and we will look at it again. However, the serious point—one that the general public should realise too—is that the default position is that this is an interim arrangement and that it will fall unless it is reaffirmed by the House. If that is incorrect, perhaps the Minister will intervene.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: To clarify the matter, the four-year period is an initial one. After that, we want to review the situation; I very much hope that we could move to what the hon. Gentleman describes as a greater default position—to a process of greater convergence. It remains to be seen whether the peace process will enable us to do that.

Mr. Öpik: At the moment, I cannot confirm the exact details in the Bill, but my interpretation of the Minister's response is that that would be the desired outcome. In four years, the Government, whether red, yellow or—conceivably—blue, will have to work extremely hard to justify to the House the idea that international funding for


Northern Irish political parties should continue as it is—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) assures me that in the event of the Conservatives forming a Government, they will not continue it. As they have told me many times that they will win the next general election, I do not know what they are so worried about. If they win, I shall make a lot of money out of Ladbroke.
I have enormous respect for the right hon. Member for Upper Bann. He expressed the justified concern that in a referendum—for example, on the unification of Ireland or the disconnection of Northern Ireland from the UK—there could be an unfair funding bias in favour of those who received international funding; let us assume that it would help the nationalists. That assumes that, between now and such a referendum, the funding arrangement would be maintained.
I do not think that there will be a referendum in four years. In the light of both the debate so far and the Minister's inference, we shall review the arrangement after four years with the presumption of eliminating it. If such a referendum were to be held in about 20 years, there would be five opportunities to eliminate the preferential funding arrangement. I stress that, meanwhile, there is nothing to stop those who are against unification from putting forward their case and receiving international funding to make it.
The right hon. Member for Upper Bann expressed the valid concern that the differential in funding arrangements requires slightly different treatment of parties that might otherwise choose to operate UK-wide. That is correct. However, my interpretation of that point is that, at long last, there are convergence criteria; we are recognising present reality, while setting up a process whereby the differences can be resolved and eliminated.
Those people who are concerned about the money imply that the increase in beneficial funding to republicans or nationalists would convince many people to vote for them. However, if I gave the right hon. Member for Bracknell or the hon. Member for Beaconsfield £1 million, I do not think that they would vote for a republican or nationalist party. The general public in Northern Ireland are extremely well informed politically; they tend to make judgments based on their varied points of view.
There has been enormous progress in Northern Ireland. Individuals whose participation in the political process we might never have anticipated have laid down their guns and tried to participate. The objections of the official Opposition are reasonable—these are matters of judgment—but they put an unnecessary and distracting strain on a process that has, to date, shown signs of leading to a lasting peace. History will prove whether we are right.
I respect the views of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann, but it is exciting that we at least have the opportunity to resolve the key issues—to park issues such as these and not introduce them now, and make a commitment to return to them in four years. If those of us who accept that the pragmatic outcome of our deliberations should be to leave the funding issue as it is for now and return to it in future are right, history will prove it. If we are wrong, I shall be the first to say so.
10.15 pm
We happen to agree with the Minister on this matter of judgment. We have secured a change. I hope that the Minister accepts that the reduction in the review period from 10 years to four was partly due to Liberal Democrat influence on the Government. We have now chosen to support the Government's proposal. I thank the House for listening to my arguments.

Mr. Walter: I presume the hon. Gentleman is speaking on behalf of the Liberals, who have tabled an amendment in this group. Will he speak to that amendment as well?

Mr. Öpik: If my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove catches your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, he will speak to that amendment, but I am limiting myself to the matters that I have discussed.
I ask those who are not inherently sympathetic to the Government's proposal to think about what we are trying to do. Politics in Northern Ireland is an extremely complicated business, and the proposal deals with the realities, strains and tensions not just between communities, but within them. If we are serious about acting in good faith, once in a while we may have to do what seems out of kilter in the short-term interest; but in my judgment, it will lead to a promising convergence in the long term.

Mr. William Ross: I have listened with interest to the last two or three contributions, but living as I do in Northern Ireland and knowing exactly how such proposals are put into effect there, I shall not use the gentle words that some hon. Members have used in an effort to persuade the House of the rightness of their cause. Frankly, at this stage in the consideration of any Bill, the chances of changing the Government's mind are somewhat less than nil, and we all appreciate that.
The bottom line and philosophy of the Bill was that the Labour party wanted to prohibit the foreign funding of political parties. That is what Labour said, and I believe it was in its manifesto. That is the thesis underlying the Bill, yet an exception is being made that will primarily help Sinn Fein/IRA—a murderous, terrorist and thuggish organisation, which is responsible for many thousands of deaths; for untold misery, damage and pain not only in Northern Ireland, but throughout the kingdom; and for racket after racket, intimidation, violence, beatings, thuggery and mutilation, which continue day by day.
By and large, hon. Members—except those who live in Northern Ireland—await stories about road accidents, mild crimes or something that the Government have or have not done, or problems with their local councils, but when my radio goes on in the morning, the first thing I hear is that a young man of 21 has been beaten up in the night by several people who broke into his house; that a young man has been found shot through the elbow, wrists or knees and found bleeding in an alley; or that someone has been beaten up. That is terrorism in action, and it does not happen once a week or once a month, but every flipping morning.
The Government tell me that we must make a concession, but we all know that the concession is being made at the behest of Sinn Fein/IRA. The concession is nothing more nor less than a capitulation to its demands, backed up by its weapons, its thuggery and its willingness
to return to violence if it does not get what it wants. For that reason in this matter, as in others, I and my right hon. and hon. Friends would prefer it if Northern Ireland parties were part of the United Kingdom system.
If the Government really want to know what to do, the Minister should consider the fact that the Bill contains a system called "accounting units", which could have been used in constructive, clever fashion to enforce the law and make Northern Ireland parties ring-fence their accounts. Primarily, Sinn Fein, which claims to be an all-Ireland party, could be made to ring-fence its accounts in the United Kingdom. Perhaps that would not stop the inflow of money from the rackets and intimidation and the money that is collected by folk rattling boxes on street corners in Boston. A friend of mine lives there. He told me that some years ago he was accosted in the street and asked to give a dime to shoot a British soldier.
That is the reality of where that dirty, bloody money comes from and what the money handed over into the boxes and in pubs and raised in all Sinn Fein/IRA's fund-raising activities is aimed at. It is aimed at changing the constitution and the territory of this nation—at diminishing the area of this nation and the writ of law. Ministers and many Labour Members exhibit a total unwillingness to understand that reality and to do what is necessary to thwart the activities of those people.
We should demand clarity about where money entering the United Kingdom political system from abroad comes from—not necessarily by publishing names, although the Opposition have tabled an amendment that would accomplish that. We could have a secret register if we wished. At least those in authority would have some idea of what was going on. Perhaps that could be done. I would prefer more clarity and transparency, but that said, 1 would be satisfied with that solution.
Where does most of the Sinn Fein/IRA money come from? My right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) referred to the amount of money that the Social Democratic and Labour party got and the fact that the proportion of Sinn Fein/IRA money coming from abroad was quite small. Where does the rest of it come from? It comes from rackets and drugs, but above all from fuel smuggling.
This week, I received a written answer to a parliamentary question from the Minister responsible. The question was: what was the Chancellor's estimate of the loss to the Revenue as a consequence of fuel smuggled into Northern Ireland? I was referred to a written answer given on 20 March, which said that the loss was estimated to have been £100 million in 1998. Am I to understand from that answer that the Government have cravenly decided not to estimate the loss in 1999, never mind in 2000? That is the only conclusion that can be drawn from the answer. The Government do not know what the loss to terrorism due to fuel smuggling is, and they do not want to know. If the loss were determined and became public knowledge, there would be an outcry in the House, in newspapers and throughout the country about the amount going straight into the hands of terrorist organisations which is used not only for political, but for all sorts of matters.
A large Mafia-type society has been created as a result of Government willingness—it did not start with this Government, I regret to say—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should deal with the amendments. They have nothing to do with the criminal element in society; they concern political parties.

Mr. Ross: I appreciate what you are saying, Mr. Speaker, but there is a fine line. I think that "inextricably linked" is the term that is applied to Sinn Fein/IRA, so what is political and what is terrorism in that respect?

Rev. Martin Smyth: Has my hon. Friend noticed that one hon. Member said that Sinn Fein had turned away from violence? Does he remember that when a bomb was apprehended in County Fermanagh, the local councillor said that the council was not in the process of condemnation?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Members for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) and for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) are straying from the matters in hand. We are considering the Lords amendments.

Mr. Ross: I accept that, Mr. Speaker, but my hon. Friend has drawn attention to political links and to the political protection that Sinn Fein offers to the terrorist organisation to which it is inextricably linked. In those circumstances, the links are not just terrorist but political.
I have said enough about fuel smuggling and the amount of money that is lost through that. If the Minister thinks that it is a laughing matter, perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not. The Chancellor could do quite a lot with the £100 million, £200 million, or God knows how many hundreds of millions that have gone missing. However, the money is not really missing; someone has got it. I conclude my remarks on this issue, but we shall return to it time and again in other debates until we get a sensible answer or, more importantly, sensible action from the Government.
The Conservative party tabled amendment (a) in lieu of amendment No. 132, which would mean that the exemption will apply not to all Northern Ireland parties, but only to some of them. When the Minister moved the amendments, I thought that he was trying to tell us that all the parties would be covered. However, clause 65(2) says that a Northern Ireland party means:

(a) a registered party of which one or more members are members of the Northern Ireland Assembly; or
(b) a registered party of which one or more members are Members of the House of Commons elected for constituencies in Northern Ireland.

So if one starts a new party, one is not covered. One would have to declare the donations made to it and produce the facts and figures. If that is true for new parties, why should it not be true for existing ones? That is another inequity to which the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), who spoke for the Scottish National party, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann referred.
The Minister mentioned the four-year period. However, as he well knows, that involves the pious hope that the provision will not be necessary at the end of four years.


In reality, at 11 or 12 o'clock one evening, an order will be introduced in the Chamber that will be accepted on the nod. The period will be extended for another four years, and then for another four years after that. It is an endless process. The arrangement will not end after four years. It is one of those temporary arrangements that tend to become permanent.
The way out of the problem is to ring-fence the United Kingdom for the purposes of this part of the Bill. We should treat Sinn Fein in Northern Ireland as an accounting unit. Although I would not be prepared to go to court to stand by any figures that it produced—I do not trust it that far—we should try our best to make the financing of that party as transparent as possible so that we have an idea about where it and other parties get their money from. It would be interesting to find out whether other Governments are funding the parties. Many people in Northern Ireland would like to have a clear idea of where the various nationalist parties receive their money from. Above all, the real solution to the problem is to destroy terrorism, not to give in to it.

Mr. Stunell: This group contains about 60 amendments, and the majority of them do not relate to Northern Ireland. I hope that the House will not mind if I address my remarks to two other issues. I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) had the opportunity to speak on Northern Ireland on this occasion, just as I know that he was delighted that I had the opportunity to speak about it on Report.
I draw the House's attention to amendment No. 39 and to several related amendments. The Minister will recall that, in the House and in Committee, I drew his attention to the grave difficulties that the Bill's original drafting had for the Liberal Democrats, as a federally organised and structured party.
I pointed out that in the form in which it then was, the Bill would have made it illegal for a political party to practise federalism. Although I accept that it is not popular to be federalist, for us that is a philosophical concept that we are keen to maintain. I acknowledge that, despite the bafflement of the Minister, the Committee and various civil servants at one time or another, my noble Friends at the other end of the building have worked with the Minister to produce sensible ways forward on the issue.
10.30 pm
I know that federalism is still misunderstood, but at least it is now not illegal for a political party. It will still be somewhat clumsy for us to operate, but as we made clear from the beginning, we are keen to implement the legislation fully and comprehensively and seek no special loopholes. All we sought was a structure that allowed us to practise our federal principles. I thank the Minister for moving some way to allow us to do that.
I shall comment on amendment No. 71 and the related amendments, which were the subject of the intervention by the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter). These amendments deal with the funding of the transitional arrangements, and the amount of money that could, should or might be made available for political parties to implement the changes.
The situation is complex. When the Bill left this place on its way to the House of Lords, £500,000 was the ceiling of the transitional amount available. In the other

place, that ceiling was raised to £700,000. We have before us three proposals, two from the Conservatives—one that the ceiling should revert to £500,000, and another that would reduce it to nil but allow access to an electronic register—and one from my right hon. and hon. Friends and me, which would raise the ceiling to £1 million. As far as I know, the Government still have on the table the sum of £700,000, so there are four figures—zero, £500,000, £700,000 or £1 million—as the possible ceiling for the transitional spending.
The Liberal Democrat view is that implementing the Bill will entail significant transitional costs for all the mainstream political parties. The Bill is drawn in such a way that the money is not dished out willy-nilly. It is to be paid only against claims for actual spending, so it will be necessary for any political party to justify the sum that it is claiming against actual activity completed.
Why is transitional spending necessary? The first reason is that the Bill requires quick implementation. The Government want it in place for the general election, and the political parties are anxious to make sure that various loopholes are blocked. The provisions must be implemented carefully, as they entail many snags, difficulties and novelties for all the main political parties, which are essentially based on volunteer effort.
In Committee we spoke a good deal about the volunteer nature of politics; that applies as much to the Conservative and Labour parties as to the Liberal Democrats, and no doubt to others. We are not, on the whole, a professionalised and fully paid party. That is certainly the case at the constituency and branch level. We will need quick, careful implementation in hundreds of locations throughout the country by volunteers with different skills and qualifications. To ensure all that, we will require training and equipment, and careful deployment of resources.
If we had two years to implement the Bill, the transitional costs might be less, the training burden might be smaller and some equipment might be acquired as part of the normal replacement programme. However, that is clearly not the case, so we were keen for the House to consider the ceiling imposed by the Bill. We certainly agree with the increase that the House of Lords has introduced, and we have tabled an amendment that would place an even higher ceiling on the amount. Judging by events so far this evening, that amendment will not come to the attention of the House for a vote. However, I want to make it clear that we support the transitional arrangements and believe that they are an important and valuable way of ensuring that the Bill is implemented quickly, effectively and accurately throughout the United Kingdom.

Mr. Walter: We have had a serious debate about the Northern Ireland provisions, and latterly we have come on to other subjects that were dealt with in a point of order made by my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) earlier today when he said that the order of amendments is not always especially logical. Amendment No. 71, which I am sure we will come to vote on later, after amendment No. 70, must be debated now. In a moment, I shall sum up the position on the amendments affecting Northern Ireland, but I shall deal first with amendment No. 71 and the amendments in the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
I correct the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell), who said that our amendments would reduce the figure for assistance to zero. They would bring it down to £500,000, which was the Bill's original provision.
There is a serious point here. The Bill will require all political parties to verify that all donations over £200 come from permissible sources, and that will place a heavy burden on political parties. The Bill will require them to verify that the individual donor appears on an electoral register. That might sound simple enough, but it is not, because there are hundreds of electoral registers throughout the country which are handled by different electoral registration officers.
My party raised the issue with the Home Office in June when we wrote to ask what plans it had
to provide parties both locally and nationally with a central, collated and up-to-date version of the electoral register.
On 11 August, the Home Office responded positively and said that it was working with the Association of Electoral Administrators to commission a study. It said that it would keep us in touch with developments.
We then realised that the Labour party had also written to the Home Office on the subject. It had received a reply dated 3 October, which is in the public domain and was copied to us. It said:
The simplest solution would be some form of "on line" access so that parties and the Electoral Commission could check whether a donor was on a register when the donation was made.
The letter continued:
The aim would be to have such a system in place for next October—
that is, October 2001. Unfortunately, the restrictions on donations will come into force eight or nine months before that. We look to the Minister to reassure us or to accept our amendment (a), which would replace amendment No. 71.
I come now to our interesting debate on the amendments affecting Northern Ireland. In response to the Under-Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay), in a moving speech, made the point that Northern Ireland political parties should be treated on an identical basis with parties in the rest of Great Britain. We had a key speech, particularly on the absence of Northern Ireland Ministers, from the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), the leader of the Ulster Unionists, who went on to express his concerns about referendums.
The hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) gave a rather unacceptable justification for the separate treatment of Northern Ireland political parties. Then we had what I can only describe as a slightly amusing contribution from the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) about the anomalous position of expatriate Scots compared with the expatriate Irish, which he saw as discrimination, particularly against the Scottish National party, a matter which led him to threaten to take the Bill to the European Court of Human Rights because he felt that it was unjust. I look forward to that action.

Mr. Salmond: The hon. Gentleman will have studied the proceedings in the other place and he will be fully

aware that I was repeating an argument used not just by Lord MacKay of Ardbrecknish, but by Lord Rees-Mogg, who I think carries the Tory Whip in the other place. The hon. Gentleman is aware of that, is he?

Mr. Walter: I am informed that Lord Rees-Mogg is a Cross-Bencher, but Lord MacKay led for the Opposition on the matter. As I and some of my hon. Friends have pointed out throughout, the Bill contains enormous contradictions when it comes to the human rights convention. They will be tested, particularly in referendums, when foreigners will be able to spend as much as they like, while poor British people will be limited by this legislation.
We then moved on to what I can only describe as the completely contradictory position of the Liberal Democrat Front-Bench spokesman. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) told us that he supported the Government position. On Report, when the Opposition disagreed with the Northern Ireland provisions, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove said:
I support the amendment moved by the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter).
He went on to say:
The Government have finally bitten the bullet and, through this Bill, have introduced provisions that will control national expenditure on elections. It is perverse therefore that we should say that there is one part of the United Kingdom where we cannot find a way of getting on top of the problem and that we need clause 63—
as it then was—
to run away from it. This clause is based on the wrong underlying philosophy and the wrong legislative theory.—[Official Report, 14 March 2000; Vol. 346, c. 195-6.]
I leave the House to decide where, at the end of the day, the Liberal Democrats—

Mr. Öpik: In that case, is the hon. Gentleman opposed to the fact that we have achieved some form of convergence criteria in the four-year upper limit?

Mr. Walter: I shall come to that in a moment, so I ask the hon. Gentleman to be patient.
We had a passionate speech from the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) about real life on the ground in Northern Ireland, and I was delighted with some of the comments made by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove, who, in Committee, supported the Opposition on many issues.
Opposition amendments (c) and (d) to Lords amendment No. 133 concern the four-year limit that has just been raised by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire. I refer the Minister to a statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office when we raised the matter in Committee and tabled an amendment that would have restrict any exemption made by the Secretary of State to a period of not more than 12 months. The Parliamentary Secretary said:
I do not discount the period suggested in the amendment, but I would ask the Committee to reject it at this stage, so that we may see what emerges from the discussions.—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 27 January 2000; c. 183.]
10.45 pm
The spokesman for the Liberal Democrats in the other place was Lord Goodhart, who had been a member of the


Neill committee and had detailed knowledge of the matter. The Neill committee originally proposed a statutory four-year maximum exemption period, but Lord Goodhart came round to our view that we should look at a one-year period. We have had a lot of discussions and there has been much cross-party discussion. We have heard about views expressed in the other place and in the House. Will the Minister reflect on those discussions and accept amendments (c) and (d) to Lords amendment No. 133 at this late stage?
We have spent many hours in other debates discussing the situation in Northern Ireland. Both sides of the House agree on the necessity of the peace process. We also agree that we wish to see a normal economic and political climate return to Northern Ireland. While I do not wish to go into the Northern Ireland debate again, I must say that the fragile nature of the peace process—which is part of what we are debating—would be damaged if we were to make special provision for those who support and sympathise with terrorism. It is an affront to political parties in Northern Ireland that are represented in the House of Commons, whose members have taken the oath and taken their seats, to allow others who are the friends of terror special privileges that are denied to parties in the rest of the United Kingdom.
The basic premise of our amendments is that, as far as possible, there should be no special provisions for Northern Ireland. Lord Neill suggested that provisions should exist because there were special circumstances in Northern Ireland, but I do not accept all his arguments because the game has moved on since the Neill report was published in October 1998. It reached us before Sinn Fein—to name but one Northern Irish political party—became an effective part of the political process. The rest, as they say, is history.
If Great Britain is to be subject to the requirements for financial propriety and transparency that are enshrined in the Bill, it is unacceptable that part of the United Kingdom with a vivid history of political corruption should be excluded from the provisions of the Neill report. I do not want to go over Northern Ireland's political history, but it would be wrong to turn a blind eye, in effect, to practices that have been declared unacceptable in the rest of the United Kingdom.
There are many contradictions in the way in which the Bill deals with Northern Ireland. Will the Minister confirm, as I believe that he did in a written parliamentary answer yesterday, that political parties in Northern Ireland can use foreign money in a referendum campaign, but that other organisations registered in Northern Ireland as third parties in a referendum cannot use foreign money in such a campaign? Is that fair, and is the Minister prepared to live with that contradiction?
Finally, on Tuesday 30 May 1995 The Daily Telegraph stated:
Labour has made clear that if it wins the next election it will outlaw contributions to party funds from overseas donors. While this would not prevent Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams raising funds for their new Washington office, it would stop his party using the money in Northern Ireland.

The article added that
senior party sources have confirmed that
the gentleman who is now Home Secretary
believes that these rules would apply to any party contesting elections in the United Kingdom.
Sources have indicated that Mr Straw is "relaxed" about the fact that it would now extend to the republican party.
The Opposition have tabled a number of amendments and we are considering amendments from the other place. I give notice to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the Opposition would like Lords amendment No. 32 to be treated as separate from the other amendments.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: We have had a good debate on some difficult issues and have heard closely argued and sensible contributions from a number of distinguished sources. I shall deal first with the speech of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) and then with those of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and of Conservative Front Benchers.

Mr. Bercow: What about the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross)?

Mr. O'Brien: I hear a sedentary comment from the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). Where I can, I shall pick up other contributions of equal importance.
The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire made an important and good contribution, and I thank him very much for his support on this issue. His arguments were sound. I also thank the Liberal Democrats—in particular, Lord Goodhart, for his contributions in the other place. The Neill committee did not recommend a specific maximum period for the different approach in Northern Ireland to apply. Lord Goodhart suggested four years. The Government considered that and were able to agree that that approach most commended itself to us. I can confirm to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire that amendment No. 133, which, I think, was tabled by the Conservatives, refers to four years. In a sense, that is the default position—we are seeking convergence. The hon. Gentleman deserves great congratulations for the fact that, during his speech, for the first time in the House, I heard a reference to convergence criteria that was not met with a sharp intake of breath by Conservative Members; he has achieved that tonight, if nothing else.
The hon. Gentleman also made the important point that we all want to ensure that, in due course, the situation for political parties in Northern Ireland is the same as that in Great Britain. We want to ensure that the same controls on political funding operate throughout the United Kingdom. In our view, however, we have not arrived at that situation, although the Bill contains a default approach and there is an assumption that we will move towards convergence. The hon. Gentleman was right to say that, should it be necessary, we intend that the Government should come to the House to demonstrate that the period of difference needs to continue. The House would have to be convinced that that was the right approach.
I shall deal with several other points. The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) mentioned clause 65, and quoted the definition that it contains. I refer him to amendment No. 134, which sets out a different approach that may result in a change to clause 65.
The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan was worried that the Bill would discriminate against the Scottish National party. He knows that that is not the
Bill's intention. My hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) regretted that we had to pass a Bill to prevent the diaspora of England, Scotland and Wales—never mind Northern Ireland—from contributing to political parties. I understand his arguments. However, donations from abroad caused great public disquiet about standards in public life. We therefore believe that it is necessary to enact such a measure.
Although the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan has some anxieties, I am sure he accepts that when we entered government, there had been a period of serious concern about standards in public life. The way in which donations from abroad were made to some political parties caused the public to feel that the standards that they had a right to expect were not being maintained.

Mr. Salmond: The most controversial donations were not from the diaspora but from people with no connection with Scotland, England, Ireland or Wales, who sought to gain advantage in the United Kingdom political system.
Will the Under-Secretary answer a straight question? Why, under the Bill, is it right for an expatriate Irishman to support Sinn Fein financially, but illegal for an expatriate Scot to support the Scottish National party, which has a 70-year record of attachment to the peaceful democratic process? How can that be right?

Mr. O'Brien: There is public anxiety about foreign donations, even when the donors have some contact with Scotland, England or Wales. We are trying to tackle that and to improve standards in public life. We therefore need to pass measures such as those in the Bill. The debate has made it clear that circumstances in Northern Ireland are manifestly different from those in Scotland, England and Wales.
The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan also asked whether we were satisfied that the Bill complied with the European convention on human rights. We are satisfied; we have certified the Bill to that effect. The House remains master of its own destiny; it will not automatically be overruled by the Human Rights Act 1998. Courts may issue a declaration of incompatibility but the House remains sovereign in relation to the legislation that it passes.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will the Under-Secretary give way?

Mr. O'Brien: I shall not give way; I want to make progress, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me.
I want to consider the important contribution of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann. He asked several questions, and I shall do my best to deal with some of them. He asked what was the basis in the Good Friday agreement for treating Northern Ireland differently. I accept that his understanding of the agreement in general, of the specific detail and of the subsequent negotiations is much greater than mine. However, there is recognition of the need for the southern Ireland Government and the UK Government to accept that, whatever the issues of sovereignty, southern Ireland is clearly interested in the future of Northern Ireland, including its political process.

Mr. McNamara: rose—

Mr. O'Brien: I shall not give way, if my hon. Friend will forgive me.
There are special circumstances in Northern Ireland. The right hon. Member for Upper Bann is First Minister in a Government that includes Ministers who have close links with the south.

11 pm

Mr. McNamara: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Minister keeps referring to "southern Ireland". Does he mean Clare island, or does he mean the Republic of Ireland, as he should in terms of recognition of an independent country?

Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): That is a matter for general debate, not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. O'Brien: I assure my hon. Friend that I am referring to the Republic of Ireland.
The right hon. Member for Upper Bann asked whether it was feared that the Government of the Republic would provide money to influence the outcome of a referendum. Let me make it clear that we would not welcome an attempt by any Government to influence the outcome of a referendum in the United Kingdom—whether on the euro or on any other issue—by giving large amounts to a particular political party.
May I deal with the matter in a slightly different way? Clause 105 provides for the Electoral Commission to allocate a grant to a designated umbrella organisation on each side of any referendum campaign. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that there would be limits on expenditure in any referendum in Northern Ireland. The impact of any foreign donations would therefore be limited to some extent. I hope that that reassures the right hon. Gentleman somewhat, although I realise that I have not been able to convince him on every point.
The right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) said—and to an extent I do not disagree—that we should seek to treat Northern Ireland like Great Britain, except when the case is proved for treating it differently. Whether the case is proved for the right hon. Gentleman or for me may well be a point of difference between us. We say that particular circumstances must apply there; the right hon. Gentleman does not necessarily accept all the arguments.
I think that, in terms of the long-term aim, we would want the same sort of rules to apply across the United Kingdom, but we do not accept that we have reached that point. I have explained why we take that view, and I do not think that I need rehearse the arguments. I understand the right hon. Gentleman's serious concerns, but we have relied on the way in which the Neill committee has told us we ought to proceed.

Mr. MacKay: rose—

Mr. O'Brien: I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman in a moment. First, let me quote from a letter that we received from the Neill committee, dated 15 October 1999, which relates to the Northern Ireland issue. The committee said:
We are pleased that you have felt able to accept our recommendation in relation to an exemption from the reporting requirements in respect of donations made to political parties in Northern Ireland.


It then set out some of the arguments. It continued:
One matter of concern arises…The protection afforded by clause 63 of the draft Bill is to be made available only to those political parties which have succeeded in winning seats either in the Northern Ireland Assembly or in the Westminster Parliament…We are concerned for two reasons. First, your proposal implies that a political party which, for example, achieves only one seat in an election and loses it in the next will, in losing that seat, lose the clause 63 protection. We believe it to be unsatisfactory that the protection should, in these circumstances, vary in this way. Second, we believe that as regards those parties which have (so far) unsuccessfully fielded candidates at elections, their exclusion from clause 63 would place them at an unfair disadvantage.
I hope that, in due course, both the right hon. Gentleman and I will be able to accept a situation in which circumstances in Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom are fairly much the same, but we are not there yet.

Mr. MacKay: Before that long quotation, the Minister said that there were particular circumstances in Northern Ireland that made it fine for political parties there to accept foreign donations, whereas that was not the case here. Will he explain what those particular circumstances are?

Mr. O'Brien: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman needs me to set out the circumstances that prevail in Northern Ireland. They are well known both to him and to me. We need to ensure that we do not treat this as a party political debating point. I accept that, up to now, the right hon. Gentleman has not done so, but it is important that we recognise that we are debating the proposals against a background of serious violence in Northern Ireland and a peace process that has developed from the Good Friday agreement. We hope that that peace process will develop further. That is a shared wish. The right hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that the circumstances are difficult. I have already set out with some clarity the arguments as to how we have reached the conclusions that we have, and the Neill committee has indicated that special circumstances do, indeed, apply in Northern Ireland.

Mr. MacKay: I do not believe that there are particular circumstances that affect the situation in such a way as to allow foreign donations to parties in Northern Ireland and not to parties elsewhere. What are those particular circumstances? As far as I can tell, all the Minister has said is that there is paramilitary violence in Northern Ireland. I agree, but that is not a reason for allowing foreign donations.

Mr. O'Brien: The right hon. Gentleman knows that there are arguably two reasons. There are two political parties that have close links with what my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) calls the Republic of Ireland and others call southern Ireland. Certainly, there are close links across the border. Therefore, a special circumstance applies in Northern Ireland which does not apply in Scotland, England or Wales. In those circumstances, we believe that it is appropriate to take the action that we have taken.
Let me deal with amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 132, which puts forward an alternative to exempting Northern Ireland parties from the disclosure requirements in part IV. Under the amendment, Northern Ireland parties would be required to disclose recordable donations to the

Electoral Commission in the normal way, but the information would not then be put into the political domain.
That is a solution that the Government themselves have previously considered. It may be a halfway house that could be put in place in due course but we do not see it as an acceptable way forward at present. Concerns have been expressed that any external reporting of donations, even if confined to reporting to the Electoral Commission, would not provide sufficient reassurance to donors that their names would not fall into the wrong hands. That is not to suggest, as has been argued, that there is reason to doubt the discretion of the Electoral Commission. It is simply a matter of perception.
As the situation improves, we will certainly look again at the option of the disclosure of donations to the Electoral Commission and not to the wider public. However, such an option should be seen as additional to, and not a substitute for, the wider powers in clause 65.
The amendments to Lords amendment No. 133 address two further aspects of clause 65: the time limit on any order that is made under subsection (1); and the effect of the exemption in respect of the ban on foreign funding in a referendum campaign.
Amendments (b), (c), (d) and (e) relate to the time limit on any order that is made under subsection (1) of clause 65. Amendment No. 133 limits the life of such an order to four years. It is right and proper that an exemption should be subject to regular review. We believe that once every four years or so is about right.
Amendments (c) and (d) would require an annual review. That is too frequent. We hope that the political climate in Northern Ireland will continue to improve year on year, but that is not the same as saying that the political situation will have changed sufficiently one year after another to justify an annual review of a clause 65 order. I invite the House to stick to four years, albeit with the possibility of an interim review should the climate materially change, in which case the order in force could, if appropriate, be revoked.
I cannot support amendment (e), which seeks to create a sunset provision in the clause. There may come a time when we can repeal the provisions in the clause, but it is premature to be thinking of that now. Of course, if no order is in force, the clause would effectively be dormant. One would hope that it would not have to be reawakened, but we should not burn our boats now.
Amendments (f) and (g) are concerned with the impact of a clause 65 order on a referendum campaign. I think that, to some extent, I have addressed the issues with which they deal.
I shall attempt to address the issues raised by the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter). The Government are entirely sympathetic to the idea that both the political parties and the Electoral Commission should have easy access to the electoral register, and, if we were starting from scratch, a national register would be one way of achieving that. Currently, however, legislation places the duty of maintaining a register of electors on local registration officers. Altering those arrangements would be a significant legislative task, and this Bill is not the place to do it.
That means that checks will have to be carried out on up-to-date registers maintained locally but, given the nature of the controls provided in the Bill, it would make sense for
there to be a central access point to all 600-plus local registers. The Electoral Commission project team is in discussion with the Improvement and Development Agency for Local Government and the Association of Electoral Administrators about the way in which online access to all local registers for the commission and the political parties can be arranged. Ensuring the compatibility of local registers is likely to assist in making those registers more accessible. However, that is no small undertaking, and, as the hon. Member for North Dorset said, the arrangements will not be in place before next October.
We are trying to determine whether, as the hon. Member for North Dorset suggested, an interim solution could be in place in time for commencement of part IV of the Bill. It has not, however, proved possible to find a value-for-money solution that could be relied on to be in place for next February. Instead it has been agreed to increase from £500,000 to £700,000 the total sum available to meet parties' start-up costs, including the costs associated with making extra checks locally against the electoral register.
I fully expect, in the long-term, to return to the commission's role in the registration of electors, but it is not a matter to be resolved in the context of this Bill. I therefore urge Opposition Members to accept the Government's view that the Lords amendments are the best way of approaching the matter. I commend the Lords amendments to the House, and ask Opposition Members not to press theirs.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 27 to 31 agreed to.

PARTIES TO BE REGISTERED IN ORDER TO FIELD CANDIDATES AT ELECTIONS

Lords amendment: No. 26, in page 12, line 4, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (2A),")

After clause 20

Lords amendment: No. 32, insert the following new clause—

("The registers of political parties

Motion made, and Question put, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Mike O'Brien.]

The House divided:— Ayes 380, Noes 143.

Division No. 363] [11.13 pm

Ayes


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)


Ainger, Nick
Bradshaw, Ben


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Breed, Colin


Alexander, Douglas
Brinton, Mrs Helen


Allen, Graham
Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Browne, Desmond


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Buck, Ms Karen


Atherton, Ms Candy
Burden, Richard


Atkins, Charlotte
Burgon, Colin


Austin, John
Burnett, John


Bailey, Adrian
Burstow, Paul


Baker, Norman
Butler, Mrs Christine


Ballard, Jackie
Byers, Rt Hon Stephen


Banks, Tony
Caborn, Rt Hon Richard


Barnes, Harry
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)


Barron, Kevin
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Battle, John
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Bayley, Hugh
Caplin, Ivor


Beard, Nigel
Casale, Roger


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Caton, Martin


Begg, Miss Anne
Cawsey, Ian


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Bennett, Andrew F
Chaytor, David


Benton, Joe
Chidgey, David


Bermingham, Gerald
Clapham, Michael


Berry, Roger
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Best, Harold
Clark, Dr Lynda


Betts, Clive
(Edinburgh Pentlands)


Blackman, Liz
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Blears, Ms Hazel
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Blizzard, Bob
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Clelland, David


Borrow, David
Clwyd, Ann


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Coaker, Vernon






Coffey, Ms Ann
Healey, John


Coleman, Iain
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Colman, Tony
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Connarty, Michael
Hendrick, Mark



Corbett, Robin
Hepburn, Stephen


Corbyn, Jeremy
Heppell, John


Corston, Jean
Hesford, Stephen


Cotter, Brian
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Cousins, Jim
Hill, Keith


Cranston, Ross
Hinchliffe, David


Crausby, David
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Hood, Jimmy


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Cummings, John
Hope, Phil


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack
Hopkins, Kelvin


(Copeland)
Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Hoyle, Lindsay


Dalyell, Tam
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Darvill, Keith
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)



Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Humble, Mrs Joan


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Hurst, Alan


Davidson, Ian
Hutton, John


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Iddon, Dr Brian


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Illsley, Eric


Davis, Rt Hon Terry
Ingram, Rt Hon Adam


(B'ham Hodge H)
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Dawson, Hilton
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Dean, Mrs Janet
Jamieson, David


Denham, John
Jenkins, Brian


Dismore, Andrew
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Dobbin, Jim
Johnson, Miss Melanie


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
(Welwyn Hatfield)


Donohoe, Brian H
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Doran, Frank
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Drew, David
Jones, Ms Jenny


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
(Wolverh'ton SW)


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Edwards, Huw
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Efford, Clive
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa


Ennis, Jeff
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Feam, Ronnie
Keeble, Ms Sally


Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Flint, Caroline
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Flynn, Paul
Keetch, Paul


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Kemp, Fraser


Foster, Don (Bath)
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Khabra, Piara S


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Kidney, David


Galloway, George
Kilfoyle, Peter


Gapes, Mike
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Gardiner, Barry
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Kingham, Ms Tess


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Kirkwood, Archy


Gerrard, Neil
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Gibson, Dr Ian
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Gidley, Sandra
Lammy, David


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Laxton, Bob


Godman, Dr Norman A
Lepper, David


Godsiff, Roger
Levitt, Tom


Goggins, Paul
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Linton, Martin


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Livsey, Richard


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Llwyd, Elfyn


Grocott, Bruce
Love, Andrew


Grogan, John
McAvoy, Thomas


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
McCartney, Rt Hon Ian


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
(Makerfield)


Hancock, Mike
McDonagh, Siobhain



Hanson, David
Macdonald, Calum


Harvey, Nick
McDonnell, John





McFall, John
Roy, Frank


McIsaac, Shona
Ruane, Chris


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Ruddock, Joan


McNamara, Kevin
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


McNulty, Tony
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


MacShane, Denis
Ryan, Ms Joan


Mactaggart, Fiona
Salter, Martin


McWalter, Tony
Sanders, Adrian


McWilliam, John
Sarwar, Mohammad


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Savidge, Malcolm


Mallaber, Judy
Sawford, Phil


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Sedgemore, Brian


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Sheemian, Barry


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Martlew, Eric
Shipley, Ms Debra


Meale, Alan
Short, Rt Hon Clare


Merron, Gillian
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Singh, Marsha


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Skinner, Dennis


Milbum, Rt Hon Alan
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Miller, Andrew
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Mitchell, Austin
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Moffatt, Laura
Smith, Miss Geraldine


Moonie, Dr Lewis
(Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Moran, Ms Margaret
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Morley, Elliot
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


(B'ham Yardley)
Snape, Peter


Mountford, Kali
Soley, Clive


Mudie, George
Southworth, Ms Helen


Mullin, Chris
Spellar, John


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Squire, Ms Rachel


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)
Steinberg, Gerry


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Stevenson, George


Norris, Dan
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Oaten, Mark
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Stinchcombe, Paul


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Stoate, Dr Howard


O'Hara, Eddie
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Olner, Bill
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


O'Neill, Martin
Stringer, Graham


Öpik, Lembit
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Organ, Mrs Diana
Stunell, Andrew


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Palmer, Dr Nick
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann


Pearson, Ian
(Dewsbury)


Pendry, Tom
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Perham, Ms Linda
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Pickthall, Colin
Temple-Morris, Peter


Plaskitt, James
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Pollard, Kerry
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Pond, Chris
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Pope, Greg
Timms, Stephen


Pound, Stephen
Tipping, Paddy


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Todd, Mark


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Primarolo, Dawn
Touhig, Don


Prosser, Gwyn
Trickett, Jon


Purchase, Ken
Truswell, Paul


Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Quinn, Lawrie
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Radice, Rt Hon Giles
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Rapson, Syd
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Raynsford, Nick
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)
Tyler, Paul


Rendel, David
Tynan, Bill



Robertson, John
Vaz, Keith


(Glasgow Anniesland)
Vis, Dr Rudi


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Walley, Ms Joan


Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff
Ward, Ms Claire


Rooney, Terry
Wareing, Robert N


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Watts, David


Rowlands, Ted
Webb, Steve






White, Brian
Winnick, David


Whitehead, Dr Alan
Woolas, Phil


Wicks, Malcolm
Worthington, Tony


Williams, Rt Hon Alan
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


(Swansea W)
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)
Wyatt, Derek


Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Willis, Phil
Mr. Jim Dowd and


Wills, Michael
Mrs. Anne McGuire.




NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Hunter, Andrew


Amess, David
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Key, Robert


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Beggs, Roy
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Lansley, Andrew


Bercow, John
Leigh, Edward


Beresford, Sir Paul
Letwin, Oliver


Blunt, Crispin
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Body, Sir Richard
Lidington, David


Boswell, Tim
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Loughton, Tim


Brady, Graham
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Brazier, Julian
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Browning, Mrs Angela
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Mackay, Rt Hon Andrew


Bums, Simon
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Butterfill, John
McLoughlin, Patrick


Cash, William
Malins, Humfrey


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Maples, John


(Chipping Barnet)
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Chope, Christopher
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Clappison, James
May, Mrs Theresa


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth
Moss, Malcolm


(Rushcliffe)
Nicholls, Patrick


Collins, Tim
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Ottaway, Richard


Cran, James
Page, Richard


Curry, Rt Hon David
Paice, James


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Pickles, Eric


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Day, Stephen
Prior, David


Duncan, Alan
Randall, John


Duncan Smith, Iain
Redwood, Rt Hon John



Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Robethan, Andrew


Evans, Nigel
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Fabricant, Michael
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Fallon, Michael
Ross,William (E Lond'y)


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Ruffley, David


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
St Aubyn, Nick


Fox, Dr Liam
Salmond, Alex


Fraser, Christopher
Sayeed, Jonathan


Gale, Roger
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Garnier, Edward
Shepherd, Richard


Gibb, Nick
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Gill, Christopher
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Soames, Nicholas


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Gray, James
Spicer, Sir Michael


Green, Damian
Spring, Richard


Greenway, John
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Grieve, Dominic
Steen, Anthony


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Streeter, Gary


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Swayne, Desmond


Hammond, Philip
Syms, Robert


Hawkins, Nick
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Hayes, John
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)



Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Horam, John
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Thompson, william





Townend, John
Willetts, David


Tredinnick, David
Wilshire, David


Trend, Michael
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Trimble, Rt Hon David
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Walter, Robert
Yeo, Tim


Waterson, Nigel
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Wells, Bowen



Whitney, Sir Raymond
Tellers for the Noes:


Whittingdale, John
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown


Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann
and


Wilkinson, John
Mr. Peter Luff.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 27 to 33 agreed to.

THE NEW REGISTERS

.—(1) In place of the register of political parties maintained by the registrar of companies under the Registration of Political Parties Act 1998, there shall be the new registers of political parties mentioned in subsection (2) which—

(a) shall be maintained by the Commission, and
(b) (subject to the provisions of this section) shall be so maintained in such form as the Commission may determine.

(2) The new registers of political parties are—

(a) a register of parties that intend to contest relevant elections in one or more of England, Scotland and Wales (referred to in this Act as "the Great Britain register"); and
(b) a register of parties that intend to contest relevant elections in Northern Ireland (referred to in this Act as "the Northern Ireland register").

(3) Each party registered in the Great Britain register shall be so registered in respect of one or more of England, Scotland and Wales; and the entry for each party so registered shall be marked so as to indicate—

(a) the part or parts of Great Britain in respect of which it is registered; and
(b) if the party is a minor party, that it is such a party.

(4) A party may be registered under this Part in both of the new registers, but where a party is so registered—

(a) the party as registered in the Great Britain register, and
(b) the party as registered in the Northern Ireland register, shall constitute two separate registered parties.

(5) In such a case—

(a) the party shall for the purposes of this Act be so organised and administered as to secure that the financial affairs of the patty in Great Britain are conducted separately from those of the party in Northern Ireland;
(b) the financial affairs of the party in Great Britain or (as the case may be) Northern Ireland, shall accordingly constitute for those purposes the financial affairs of the party as registered in the Great Britain register or (as the case may be) the Northern Ireland register; and
(c) any application for the registration of a party in accordance with subsection (4) shall similarly be made and determined by reference to the party's organisation and activities in Great Britain and Northern Ireland respectively.

(6) The Secretary of State may by order make provision for the transfer to the Commission of any property, rights and liabilities to which the registrar of companies is entitled or subject in connection with his functions under the Registration of Political Parties Act 1998; and an order under this subsection may in particular provide for the order to have effect despite any provision (of whatever nature) which would prevent or restrict the transfer of the property, rights or liabilities otherwise than by the order.")

Clause 22

OFFICE-HOLDERS TO BE REGISTERED

Lords amendment: No. 34, in page 13, line 31, leave out subsection (4) and insert—

("(4) The person registered as a party's treasurer shall be responsible for compliance on the part of the party—

(a) with the provisions of Parts III and IV (accounting requirements and control of donations), and
(b) unless a person is registered as the party's campaigns officer in accordance with section (Parties with campaigns officers), with the provisions of Parts V to VII (campaign expenditure, third party expenditure and referendums) as well.

(4A) In the case of a party with accounting units the person registered as the party's treasurer shall, in relation to the provisions of Part III, be responsible for compliance on the part of the party's central organisation (rather than of the party).")

Mr. Tipping: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 35 to 39, 42 to 45, 52, 56, 58 to 60, 63, 64 and amendments (a) and (b) thereto, 65 to 67, 147, 148 and amendments (a) and (b) thereto, 150, 312 to 317, 379 and 381 to 389.

Mr. Tipping: This group of amendments deals with various points relating to the registration of political parties. Amendment No. 34 is concerned with the responsibilities of the registered treasurer. Clause 22, as considered by this House, requires the registered treasurer to have overall responsibility for the financial affairs of the party and for ensuring compliance on the part of that party with the provisions of the Bill—[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister must be heard. Will Members remaining in the Chamber please be quiet?

Mr. Tipping: We accept that it is not essential that a registered treasurer perform the former role as well as the latter. What is needed is a compliance officer, who may or may not have overall responsibility for the financial affairs of the party.
Amendment No. 34, taken with amendment No. 39, also addresses concerns that the Liberal Democrats have expressed about the impact of the Bill on their federal party structure. The amendments provide for the registration of a campaigns officer with responsibility for


compliance on the part of the party with the provisions of parts V to VII, namely, the controls on election and referendum expenditure. Where a party appoints a campaigns officer, the responsibilities of the registered treasurer would be confined to compliance with parts III and IV. In another place, Lord Rennard welcomed these amendments as addressing his party's concerns. Earlier, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell), who has pursued the matter fairly vigorously, acknowledged that the amendments would satisfy his party's concerns.
11.30 pm
Lords amendments Nos. 52, 56 and 63 require the Electoral Commission, when it refuses an application under clauses 25, 26 or 27, to give the party concerned a notification in writing of the reasons for such refusal.
The new clause inserted by Lords amendment No. 64 ensures that a party's registered entry is kept up to date. A change to one of the party's registered officers would need to be notified to the commission within 14 days; all other changes to a party's entry in the register would need to be notified within 28 days.
Although I favour the amendments, I note that there is dissent in the House on the matter. I note carefully the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle) and his colleagues. Indeed, in an earlier intervention, the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) made it clear that the Conservatives had real anxieties about these matters. I do not want to pre-empt them, but the argument is not about principle, but about practice.
The Government's view is fairly straightforward: we believe that the 14 day and 28-day provisions are commensurate. In the example cited earlier—of a death—the appropriate course would not necessarily be for the party to find a new treasurer immediately, but to ask another of its officers to take the position temporarily until a permanent replacement could be found.
I ask the House to accept the Lords amendments.

Mr. Grieve: I am grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for his brevity. The matter was touched on earlier, but it is, nevertheless, one to which we must return.
The Minister is right—the bulk of the amendments are sensible. They command agreement and are an illustration of the operation of the good aspects of the passage of the Bill. However, there is a point of detail that cannot be ignored. One feature of the Bill is the extent to which it places onerous burdens of compliance on local constituency associations and, as I pointed out earlier, with draconian penalties if such compliance is not forthcoming.
I ask the Minister, as I did earlier, to consider the position of a small constituency association—possibly of a minority party—that does not have a huge input from the centre, and whose treasurer drops dead. Given the mechanisms that have to be employed to replace a treasurer—the fact that one has to remember all those matters—is it reasonable to expect that association, within 14 days, to select someone else and to put the name forward to the Electoral Commission?
The Minister kindly informed us that the local association should have a replacement available—someone who could easily step into the breach. However,

we know that the Bill places onerous burdens on treasurers; not many people will be willing to take on that task. Indeed, that is one of the anxieties that has been frequently expressed during the passage of the measure. In those circumstances, our proposal—to lengthen the period to 21 days in the event of a death and to 42 days otherwise—is reasonable, prudent and sensible.
I cannot believe that the Electoral Commission's principles of control will founder as a result of that provision. Although it may appear to be a detail, it is upon such detail that the Bill's success as law will rest. We consider that our amendments—especially our amendment to Lords amendment No. 64—should be pressed to a vote; they offer a better course of action than that proposed by the Government.

Mr. Stunell: I shall not rehearse the points that I have made about the Bill's adaptation to accommodate the philosophical viewpoint of the Liberal Democrats on federalism, except to say that it is appreciated that a lot of work has been done on topics with which civil servants and Ministers were not especially familiar initially. I should like to give credit to Lord Rennard for the work that he has done in the other place.
I want to say a few words about the amendments to which the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) has spoken. We feel strongly that a tremendously burdensome, bureaucratic requirement will be placed on local party officers, especially small-scale branch treasurers and the smallest fry in the political arena. On hearing the hon. Gentleman, a colleague of mine said, "Well, it is not surprising that the first treasurer dropped dead, considering the burdens created under the Bill." Many treasurers will be reluctant to take office and people will be reluctant to come forward if a vacancy arises.
The suggestion that there could be acting treasurers is a little fanciful. Accounts would not be changed and the necessary resolutions would not be passed at formal meetings in the time scale that would allow such appointments to be made. I suspect that in the average branch, the cheques would collect behind the clock until the new treasurer was appointed. There would be serious difficulties in the unhappy circumstance of a vacancy occurring during an election, when the treasurer's role might be more acutely focused. Parties will be required to live with those difficulties under the Bill.
I spoke earlier about the transitional, training and preparatory arrangements necessary to make all this happen. If people are told that they must have another treasurer in place within 14 days—the funeral, the inquest or whatever will have hardly taken place—and that they will be in default if they have not, the dominoes will start to topple as the offences mount.

Mr. Tipping: Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), both of whom have been talking about the treasurers of accounting units. Of course the provisions on those units are for a replacement within 28 days, but Lords amendment No. 34 deals with the replacement of national treasurers within 14 days. If the real concern is about the treasurers of accounting units, I believe that there is no disquiet or argument across the Floor of the House.

Mr. Stunell: I thank the Minister for that helpful intervention, which perhaps clarifies some of the issues. I was making a general case by reference to a particular example. If that example is not appropriate, I am happy to move on.
Any organisation faces difficulties when such a tragic vacancy occurs. I should like the Minister to explain why he thinks it so important to refer to two weeks. What would be the effect on the Bill's effective implementation if 21 days were adopted? What control would be lost? What offence or abuse do the Government fear would be created by an interregnum of three weeks rather than two? Without a treasurer at any level in the party, there will be no authorisation, so there can be no illegal or unmonitored expenditure. Such decisions will be delayed until the vacancy is filled.
If a vacancy occurs in the middle of an election, there will be every pressure on the party to make an alternative appointment so that progress can be made. There is a requirement for reporting at seven-day intervals during elections, so 14 days is insufficient to ensure that that occurs. I want to press the Minister on that point. Why does the time scale have to be 14 days? Why not 21 days? What abuse are the Government trying to stop? Given the grave difficulties that a party will face in such an unfortunate circumstance, why is it essential to include such a barrier? I will join the hon. Member for Beaconsfield and his colleagues. If the matter is put to the vote, we will support the extended deadline—not because it creates a loophole, but because it prevents a major disincentive to political parties delivering the goods.

Mr. William Ross: I support the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), which is widely supported by Opposition Members. I suspect that if Labour Members thought about it, they would also support it.
Frankly, we always have difficulty getting people to take on the onerous task of being secretary. One will always get a chairman, or a vice-chairman—he figures that he will not have to do much—but one needs an enthusiast or a fanatic to take on the job of secretary. In the case of a treasurer, one needs someone who is extremely careful with money and who enjoys the trust of the whole party. In a small party, it is difficult to find people to do such jobs in a voluntary capacity.
Organisations the size of the major parties—the Liberal Democrats, the Labour party, the Conservative party—can employ full-time officials. I suspect that the treasurer in the larger parties is merely a figurehead, who can be replaced at short notice with another figurehead. That is not the case with a smaller party, where the person does the work. Frankly, my party and the other parties in Northern Ireland consider the time limit proposed by the Opposition to be modest. We would prefer a longer period.
I agree with those who have said that they see no dangers in the extension. I see great merit in it, and I beg the Government to think seriously about the difficulties in which they are placing the small parties with their proposals. Will the Government please accept the Opposition amendment on this occasion?

Mr. John Redwood: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to catch your eye at this late hour, when we have made so little progress on this substantial rewrite of the Bill.

Mr. Tom Levitt: Get on with it!

Mr. Redwood: I have been speaking for all of two sentences. The hon. Gentleman should be a little more patient. What I am about to say is of considerable importance to the way in which the Government conduct their business, draft sloppy and rotten legislation, and do not give us proper time to consider substantial rewrites.
The amendments in the group run to many pages and represent a comprehensive rewriting of the clauses to which they refer. The Bill was made up of 181 pages. There are now 127 pages of amendments, which is a disgraceful ratio.
We have just reached clause 22—due to the detailed rewrite of the preceding clauses—and we find that 73 lines of amendment have been tabled to straighten out the original 43-line clause, which went through its due processes in both Houses. We are being asked to approve 73 lines of amendments that completely change the mechanism by which this part of the legislation will be implemented.
The main substance of the amendments to clause 22 that we are invited to approve is to allow in a new person—a party's campaign officer—to take on the responsibilities that were originally to go to the treasurer.
Amendment No. 39 would insert a new clause after clause 22. The new clause uses stumbling phraseology to define a campaign officer, to explain that he may have 12 deputies because he may find the task too onerous and to point out that responsibilities are split between the campaign officer and treasurer, depending on the different parts of the legislation for which compliance is being requested or sought. This is an enormously bureaucratic and complicated set of procedures and the more titles and registration requirements the Bill introduces, the more difficult judgments will have to be made when deciding when a party can comply, will comply or has complied. Mistakes, controversy and disagreement will therefore be more likely.
11.45 pm
The Minister must realise that these issues will be hard fought. They go to the heart of our party political process. He is inviting us to agree to amendments that make the detail even more complicated, greatly increasing the scope for genuine dispute. What should be a relatively straightforward regulatory matter will be caught up in a deeply political process. It is not a good idea deeply to politicise regulation, and the complexity proposed for clause 22 makes that much more likely.
I should have liked to have time to talk about the split of responsibilities between local and national political organisations and about the element of discretion by considering units, as they are called, as well as the national hierarchy. It is more normal to ask for national responsibility in such matters, but there will not be time to examine the issue because my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) has draw attention to an issue that he thinks is even more important and on which


he would like a ministerial reply. [Interruption.] I am glad that Labour Members think that this is a suitable occasion for snoring, but they must understand that their elections and constituency organisations could be tied up in the very disputes to which I am drawing attention and about which they appear to have no knowledge whatever. They now seem to think that our parliamentary democratic system—[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman must he heard in silence.

Mr. Redwood: It is very rare for me to be heard in silence. I would think that something had gone wrong if Labour Members listened to me in silence. The more they barrack, the more worried they are. The looks on their faces reveals it all. They know that it is another piece of botched legislation and that it is an appallingly badly drafted clause. The Minister is nonchalantly recommending a comprehensive rewrite of the clause and of most of the rest of the Bill without having a clue as to how it will work and without having any answers to the disputes that will doubtless arise when we try to implement such nonsense.
I have skipped many important amendments to reach amendment No. 64, which would add a new clause to the Bill after clause 27. My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield pointed out that the timing allowed would be tight for a national treasurer let alone a unit treasurer. I understand the Minister's point that we shall be allowed double the short period of time for the unit than we are for the national situation, but many other features of the registration process in the new clause worry me considerably.
Even though there is so little time, I will give the Minister time to reply. I hope that he will explain why registered officers of a party have to register themselves not only as registered officers and register the address of the party headquarters—that is entirely reasonable—but have to register their own address. A political party knows where its registered officers live and would know how to find them if it needed to. However, is it a good idea to put their addresses into the public domain? At times in Britain, security is a worrying issue and that might become a problem not just for elected representatives, but for volunteers in a voluntary party system.
My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield made a good point when he said that it was not always easy, particularly in small minority parties—not the Conservative party or even possibly the Labour party—to find people to carry out such jobs. Subsection (2)(a) to (f) of the new clause contains the requirements for registration, and they will make some people think again. People have to make a great voluntary effort to exercise the eternal vigilance that party organisation and democratic debate require. We know, however, that the audience out there is walking away from the Government and the kind of politics for which they stand. They cannot get their own supporters to vote in elections.
Is it right to make it so much more bureaucratic, cumbersome and difficult to organise in parties and to go through the party political process, as the Government seem to wish to do? They are making a rather out-of-date political point relating to events long ago, instead of understanding that the modern problem is the lack of

engagement by many people in the democratic party political process. Given the way in which the Government are going, they will make it even more difficult to get those missing voters back and to turn them into Labour party activists.
With great regret, I sit down before I have made three or four more points that need making, because we need the benefit of the Minister's reply on these crucial weaknesses in amendment No. 64, which inserts a new clause after clause 27. I hope that he will also explain why we have faced such a huge rewrite of the Bill. The Government's incompetence in the original draft was obviously overwhelming. Does he regret not giving us more time this evening to consider what is, in effect, a completely new Bill?

Mr. Tipping: I listened with great interest, as I always do, to the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood). Madam Deputy Speaker asked the House to listen to him in silence. Some right hon. Members listened to him in somnolence. I know that the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) has played an active part in our debates this week. I hope that, after his exertions, he becomes a late convert to programming. I trust that his exertions will not get the better of him, and that he will be enthused by the comments of the right hon. Member for Wokingham.
The right hon. Member for Wokingham complained about the split between the responsibilities of treasurer and compliance officer. He described it as bureaucratic and unhelpful. I remind him that that is similar to an amendment from his hon. Friends which we accepted on Report. He asked us to be a listening Government. We are a listening Government, and we heard what his hon. Friends said on Report. In the light of their complaints about the onerous duties that would be imposed on the party treasurer, we accepted their view that it might be better to split the post between the treasurer and a compliance officer.
The right hon. Gentleman complains that that has made the terms of the Bill wider and more difficult. I hope that his hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench will welcome the steps that we have taken to ensure that the voice of his party is heard in the Bill.
The same applies to the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell), who during the deliberations on the Bill pursued the need to make arrangements so that parties with a federal structure could have a fair deal. Earlier in the debate this evening, he complained about the looks of astonishment and the difficulties that Ministers and officials perceived in solving the problem.
I am pleased that we have been able to resolve the problem. I gently chide the hon. Gentleman and remind him that there have been a number of meetings with him and employees of his party to try to find a solution. It ain't been easy, and I am delighted that we succeeded. I am sorry to say that that has complicated the Bill, but I firmly believe that it is right for us to ensure that the provisions meet the needs of the third major party in the United Kingdom.
I do not think that we should be criticised for doing that. We should be commended for it. We listened to his hon. Friends and made adjustments to suit them. We listened to the representations from the Conservatives and made adjustments to suit them. Both parties complained
that the Bill would not work, but we have taken steps to ensure that it will. I suspect that it may be necessary to divide the House, and I am disappointed about that because discussions throughout the Bill's passage have generally been constructive and helpful.
The hon. Members for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) and for Hazel Grove talked about the branch treasurer, the constituency treasurer and the treasurer of the accounting unit. The amendment applies to the national treasurer. If there is a need for a new treasurer for a new, smaller accounting unit, the Bill provides 28 days for such a person to be appointed.

Mr. Grieve: The Parliamentary Secretary will remember that in Committee we agreed that many registered political parties are very small and localised. Many are no bigger than the accounting units of the larger parties. It was in relation to the concerns of small parties in particular that I made the point that 14 days was insufficient.

Mr. Tipping: That is right, and the Bill has been amended to provide 28 days for a replacement to be made in such cases.
Amendment No. 64, which is under dispute, concerns a 14-day period for replacement. The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues are pressing us to extend that to 21 days. The provision applies exclusively to the national treasurer. The hon. Gentleman has followed the debate closely and, dare I say it, influenced it and brought about changes. He was kind enough to acknowledge earlier that this has been a valuable and helpful experience. He knows that the national treasurer is the linchpin of the Bill's provisions. We cannot allow that linchpin to be removed and not replaced within a reasonable period.
I point out to the hon. Gentleman, who is normally very helpful, that the difference between 14 and 21 days is not large. I suggested earlier that if one of the party's officials were unable to continue their duty, perhaps because of death, the appropriate step would be for one of the other national officials temporarily to hold the post. That is not unreasonable. If an election were approaching it would be vital for the Electoral Commission to have a responsible person in post, and 14 days is not an unreasonable period in which to appoint such a person.

Mr. Grieve: We may be slightly at cross-purposes. I understand that the amendment relates to national treasurers, but there are national treasurers of registered political parties that are absolutely minute, and they stand to be criminalised.

Mr. Tipping: I have some sympathy on that point, which was raised by the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross). He said that his party was relatively small and might have difficulty in finding a national treasurer. However, the mechanism will ensure that such a party can proceed. As the treasurer acts as a linchpin, it is not unreasonable to say that in an unexpected case, such as a death, another national officer should temporarily take the treasurer's place, and that is what would happen in practice. As I said, I hope that it will not be necessary to divide the House on that point.
On a relatively minor point, the hon. Member for Beaconsfield asked me why it was necessary to have the name and address of the treasurer on the record. It is important that the Electoral Commission should be able to check whether someone is on the electoral register, and giving the name provides the opportunity to do that.

It being Twelve midnight,
MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [this day].

Lords amendment agreed to.

MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER then put the remaining Questions required to be put at that hour.

After Clause 64

Lords amendment: No. 130, to insert the following new clause—Tax relief on political donations—

After section 379 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 (interpretation of sections 369 to 378) there shall be inserted—

Tax relief on political donations.

379AA. (1) Tax relief shall be available to an individual ("the donor") in accordance with this section on qualifying political donations made by him of up to £500 in any year of assessment.

(2) A donation is a qualifying political donation for the purposes of this section if it is made to a registered political party (other than a minor party) and—

(a) it takes the form of the payment of a sum of money,
(b) it is not subject to a condition as to repayment,
(c) it is not conditional on or associated with, or part of an arrangement involving, the acquisition of property by the political party, its members or accounting units, otherwise than by way of gift, from the donor or a person connected with him, and
(d) the donor is a registered elector.

(3) For the purposes of this section a political party is an eligible political party if—

(a) it is a registered party within the meaning of section 22 of this Act other than a minor party, and
(b) at the last general election preceding the donation in question—

(i) two members of that party were elected to the House of Commons, or
(ii) one member of that party was elected to the House of Commons and not less than 150,000 votes were given to candidates who were members of that party.

(4) If an individual makes a qualifying donation he shall be entitled, on making the payment, to deduct and retain out of it a sum equal to basic rate tax thereon.

(5) Where a sum is deducted under subsection (4) above, the sum deducted shall be treated as income tax paid by the person to whom the payment is made.

(6) Any person by whom a qualifying donation is received shall be entitled to recover from the Board, in accordance with regulations, an amount which by virtue of subsection (5) above is treated as income tax paid by him; and any amount so recovered shall be treated for the purposes of the Tax Acts in like manner as the qualifying political donation to which it relates.

(7) The following provisions of the Taxes Management Act 1970, namely—

(a) section 29(1)(c) (excessive relief) as it has effect apart from section 29(2) to (10) of that Act,
(b) section 30 (tax paid in error, etc) apart from subsection (1B),
(c) section 86 (interest), and
(d) section 95 (incorrect return or accounts),

shall apply in relation to an amount which is paid to any person by the Board as an amount recoverable in accordance with regulations made by virtue of subsection (6) above but to which that person is not entitled as if it were income tax which ought not to have been repaid and, where that amount was claimed by that person, as if it had been repaid as respects a chargeable period as a relief which was not due.

(8) In the application of section 86 of the Taxes Management Act 1970 by virtue of section (7) above in relation to sums due and payable by virtue of an assessment made for the whole or part of a year of assessment ("the relevant year of assessment") under section 29(1)(c) or 30 of that Act, as applied by that subsection, the relevant date—

(a) is 1st January in the relevant year of assessment in a case where the person falling within subsection (5) above has made a relevant interim claim; and
(b) in any other case is the later of the following dates, that is to say—

(i) 1st January in the relevant year of assessment; or
(ii) the date of the making of the payment by the Board which gives rise to the assessment.

(9) The Board may by regulations make provision—

(a) for the purposes of any provision of this section which relates to any matter or thing to be specified by or done in accordance with regulations;
(b) with respect to the furnishing of information by donors or recipients, including, in the case of recipients, the inspection of books, documents and other records on behalf of the Board; and
(c) generally for giving effect to this section.

(10) In this section—

"financial year" in relation to any person, means a financial year of that person for the purposes of the relevant regulations;

"interim claim" means an interim claim within the meaning of the relevant regulations;

"relevant interim claim" means, in relation to an assessment made for a period coterminous with, or falling wholly within, a person's financial year, an interim claim made for a period falling wholly or partly within that financial year; and

"the relevant regulations" means regulations made under subsection (9) above.

(11)Section 839 of this Act shall apply for the purposes of this section to determine whether one person is connected with another."")

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment. — [Mr. Mike O'Brien.]

The House divided: Ayes 343, Noes 172.

Division No. 364]
[12.1 am


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Cranston, Ross


Ainger, Nick
Crausby, David


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Alexander, Douglas
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Allen, Graham
Cummings, John


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
(Copeland)


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Atherton, Ms Candy
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire


Atkins, Charlotte
Dalyell, Tam


Austin, John
Darvill, Keith


Bailey, Adrian
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Barnes, Harry
Davidson, Ian


Barron, Kevin
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Battle, John
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Bayley, Hugh
Davis, Rt Hon Terry


Beard, Nigel
(B'ham Hodge H)


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Dawson, Hilton


Begg, Miss Anne
Dean, Mrs Janet


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Denham, John


Bennett, Andrew F
Dismore, Andrew


Benton, Joe
Dobbin, Jim


Berry, Roger
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Best, Harold
Donohoe, Brian H


Betts, Clive
Doran, Frank


Blackman, Liz
Drew, David


Blears, Ms Hazel
Eagle, Angela (wallasey)


Blizzard, Bob
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Edwards,Huw


Borrow, David
Efford, Clive


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Ennis, Jeff


Bradshaw, Ben
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Flint, Caroline


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Flynn, Paul


Browne, Desmond
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Buck, Ms Karen
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Burden, Richard
Foster, Michael J(Worcester)


Burgon, Colin
Galloway, George


Butler, Mrs Christine
Gapes, Mike


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Gardiner, Barry


Cabom, Rt Hon Richard
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Gerrard, Neil


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Gibson, Dr Ian


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Caplin, Ivor
Godman, Dr Norman A


Casale, Roger
Godsiff, Roger


Caton, Martin
Goggins, Paul


Cawsey, Ian
Golding, Mrs Llin


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Chaytor, David
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Clapham, Michael
Griffiths, Nigel(Edinburgh S)


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clark, Dr Lynda
Grocott, Bruce


(Edinburgh Pentlands)
Grogan, John


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Hamiltion, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hanson, David


Clelland, David
Healey, John


Clwyd, Ann
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Coaker, Vernon
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hendrick, Mark


Coleman, Iain
Hepbum, Stephen


Colman, Tony
Heppell, John


Connarty, Michael
Hesford, Stephen


Corbett, Robin
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hill, Keith


Corston, Jean
Hinchliffe, David


Cousins, Jim
Hodge, Ms Margaret







Hood, Jimmy
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan


Hope, Phil
Miller, Andrew


Hopkins, Kelvin
Mitchell, Austin


Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)
Moffatt, Laura


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hoyle, Lindsay
Moran, Ms Margaret


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Morley, Elliot


Humble, Mrs Joan
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle


Hurst, Alan
(B'ham Yardley)


Hutton, John
Mountford, Kali


Iddon, Dr Brian
Mudie, George


Illsley, Eric
Mullin, Chris


Ingram, Rt Hon Adam
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Jamieson, David
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)


Jenkins, Brian
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Norris, Dan


Johnson, Miss Melanie
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


(Welwyn Hatfield)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
O'Hara, Eddie


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Olner, Bill


Jones, Ms Jenny
O'Neill, Martin


(Wolverh'ton SW)
Organ, Mrs Diana


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Palmer, Dr Nick


Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Pearson, Ian


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Pendry, Tom


Keeble, Ms Sally
Perham, Ms Linda


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Pickthall, Colin


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Plaskitt, James


Kemp, Fraser
Pollard, Kerry


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Pond, Chris


Khabra, Piara S
Pope, Greg


Kidney, David
Pound, Stephen


Kilfoyle, Peter
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Kingham, Ms Tess
Primarolo, Dawn


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Prosser, Gwyn


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Purchase, Ken


Lammy, David
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


Laxton, Bob
Quinn, Lawrie


Lepper, David
Radice, Rt Hon Giles


Levitt, Tom
Rapson, Syd


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Raynsford, Nick


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Linton, Martin
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Robertson, John


Love, Andrew
(Glasgow Anniesland)


McAvoy, Thomas
Roche, Mrs Barbara


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


McCartney, Rt Hon Ian
Rooney, Terry


(Makerfield)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


McDonagh, Siobhain
Rowlands, Ted


Macdonald, Calum
Roy, Frank


McDonnell, John
Ruane, Chris


McFall, John
Ruddock, Joan


McIsaac, Shona
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Ryan, Ms Joan


McNamara, Kevin
Salter, Martin


McNulty, Tony
Sarwar, Mohammad


MacShane, Denis
Savidge, Malcolm


Mactaggart, Fiona
Sawford, Phil


McWalter, Tony
Sedgemore, Brian


McWilliam, John
Sheerman, Barry


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Shipley, Ms Debra


Mallaber, Judy
Short, Rt Hon Clare


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Singh, Marsha


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Skinner, Dennis


Martlew, Eric
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Meale, Alan
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Merron, Gillian
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Smith, Miss Geraldine


Michie, Bill (Shefld Heeley)
(Morecambe & Lunesdale)





Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Snape, Peter
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Soley, Clive
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Southworth, Ms Helen
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Spellar, John
Tynan, Bill


Squire, Ms Rachel
Vaz, Keith


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Vis, Dr Rudi


Steinberg, Gerry
Walley, Ms Joan


Stevenson, George
Ward, Ms Claire


Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Wareing, Robert N


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Watts, David


Stinchcombe, Paul
White, Brian


Stoate, Dr Howard

Whitehead, Dr Alan


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Wicks, Malcolm


Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Stringer, Graham
(Swansea W)


Stuart, Ms Gisela
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann
Wills, Michael


(Dewsbury)
Wilson, Brian


Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Winnick, David


Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Woolas, Phil


Temple-Morris, Peter

Worthington, Tony


Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Timms, Stephen
Wyatt, Derek


Tipping, Paddy



Touhig, Don
Tellers for the Ayes:


Trickett, Jon
Mrs. Anne McGuire and


Truswell, Paul
Mr. Jim Dowd.




NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Amess, David
Duncan, Alan


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Duncan Smith, Iain


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Evans, Nigel


Ballard, Jackie
Fabricant, Michael


Beggs, Roy
Fallon, Michael


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Fearn, Ronnie


Bercow, John
Flight, Howard


Beresford, Sir Paul
Forth, Rt Hon Eric


Blunt, Crispin
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Body, Sir Richard
Fox, Dr Liam


Boswell, Tim
Fraser, Christopher


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Gale, Roger


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Garnier, Edward


Brady, Graham
Gibb, Nick


Brazier, Julian
Gidley, Sandra


Breed, Colin
Gill, Christopher


Browning, Mrs Angela
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Gray, James


Burnett, John
Green, Damian


Burns, Simon
Greenway, John


Burstow, Paul
Grieve, Dominic


Butterfill, John
Gummer, Rt Hon John


Cash, William
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Hammond, Philip


(Chipping Barnet)
Hancock, Mike


Chidgey, David
Harvey, Nick


Clappison, James
Hawkins, Nick


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Hayes, John


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


(Rushcliffe)
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Collins, Tim
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Horam, John


Cotter, Brian
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Cran, James
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Curry, Rt Hon David
Hunter, Andrew


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Jenkin, Bernard


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Day, Stephen
Keetch, Paul






Key, Robert
St Aubyn, Nick


Kirkwood, Archy
Salmond, Alex


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Sanders, Adrian


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lensley, Andrew
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Leigh, Edward
Shepherd, Richard


Letwin, Oliver
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Lidington, David
Soames, Nicholas


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Livsey, Richard
Spicer, Sir Michael


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Spring, Richard


Llwyd, Elfyn
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Loughton, Tim
Steen, Anthony


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Streeter, Gary


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Stunell, Andrew


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Swayne, Desmond


MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Syms, Robert


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Tapsell, Sir Peter


McLoughlin, Patrick
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Malins, Humfrey
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Maples, John
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Maude, Rt Hon Francis
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
Tonge, Dr Jenny


May, Mrs Theresa
Townend, John


Moore, Michael
Tredinnick, David


Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)
Trend, Michael


Moss, Malcolm
Tyler, Paul


Nicholls, Patrick
Walter, Robert


Oaten, Mark
Waterson, Nigel


O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)
Webb, Steve


Öpik, Lembit
Wells, Bowen


Ottaway, Richard
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Page, Richard
Whittingdale, John


Paice, James
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Pickles, Eric
Wilkinson, John


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Willetts, David


Prior, David
Willis, Phil


Randall, John
Wilshire, David


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Rendel, David
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Robathan, Andrew
Yeo, Tim


Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Tellers for the Noes:


Ross, William (E Lond'y)
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown


Ruffley, David
and


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Mr. Peter Luff.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment disagreed to.

Question put, That this House agrees with the Lords in the remaining Lords amendments:—

The House divided: Ayes 370, Noes 141.

Division No. 365]
[12.14 am


Ayes


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Battle, John


Ainger, Nick
Bayley, Hugh


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Beard, Nigel


Alexander, Douglas
Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret


Allen, Graham
Begg, Miss Anne


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Bennett, Andrew F


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Benton, Joe


Atherton, Ms Candy
Berry, Roger


Atkins, Charlotte
Best, Harold


Austin, John
Betts, Clive


Bailey, Adrian
Blackman, Liz


Ballard, Jackie
Blears, Ms Hazel


Banks, Tony
Blizzard, Bob


Barnes, Harry
Boateng, Rt Hon Paul


Barron, Kevin
Borrow, David





Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Edwards, Huw


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Efford, Clive


Bradshaw, Ben
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Breed, Colin
Ennis, Jeff


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Fearn, Ronnie


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna


Browne, Desmond
Flint, Caroline


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Flynn, Paul


Buck, Ms Karen
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Burden, Richard
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Burgon, Colin
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Burnett, John
Galloway, George


Burstow, Paul
Gapes, Mike


Butler, Mrs Christine
Gardiner, Barry


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Cabom, Rt Hon Richard
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Gerrard, Neil


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Gibson, Dr Ian


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Gidley, Sandra


Caplin, Ivor
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Casale, Roger
Godman, Dr Norman A


Caton, Martin
Godsiff, Roger


Cawsey, Ian
Goggins, Paul


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Chaytor, David
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Chidgey, David
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Clapham, Michael
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Grocott, Bruce


Clark, Dr Lynda
Grogan, John


(Edinburgh Pentlands)
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Hancock, Mike


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hanson, David


Clelland, David
Harvey, Nick


Clwyd, Ann
Healey, John


Coaker, Vernon
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Coffey, Ms Ann
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Coleman, Iain
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Colman, Tony
Hendrick, Mark


Connarty, Michael
Hepburn, Stephen


Corbett, Robin
Heppell, John


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hesford, Stephen


Corston, Jean
Hill, Keith


Cotter, Brian
Hinchliffe, David


Cousins, Jim
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Cranston, Ross
Hood, Jimmy


Crausby, David
Hope, Phil


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Hopkins, Kelvin


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)


Cummings, John
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack
Hoyle, Lindsay


(Copeland)
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Dalyell, Tam
Humble, Mrs Joan


Darvill, Keith
Hurst, Alan



Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Hutton, John


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Iddon, Dr Brian


Davidson, Ian
Illsley, Eric


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Ingram, Rt Hon Adam


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Davis, Rt Hon Terry
Jamieson, David


(B'ham Hodge H)
Jenkins, Brian


Dawson, Hilton
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Dean, Mrs Janet
Johnson, Miss Melanie


Denham, John
(Welwyn Hatfield)


Dismore, Andrew
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Dobbin, Jim
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Jones, Ms Jenny


Donohoe, Brian H
(Wolverh'ton SW)


Doran, Frank
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Drew, David
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa






Keeble, Ms Sally
Organ, Mrs Diana


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Palmer, Dr Nick


Keetch, Paul
Pearson, Ian


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Pendry, Tom


Khabra, Piara S
Perham, Ms Linda


Kidney, David
Pickthall, Colin


Kilfoyle, Peter
Plaskitt, James


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Pollard, Kerry


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Pond, Chris


Kingham, Ms Tess
Pope, Greg


Kirkwood, Archy
Pound, Stephen


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Lammy, David
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Laxton, Bob
Primarolo, Dawn


Lepper, David
Prosser, Gwyn


Levitt, Tom
Purchase, Ken


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Quinn, Lawrie


Linton, Martin
Radice, Rt Hon Giles


Livsey, Richard
Rapson, Syd


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Raynsford, Nick


Love, Andrew
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


McAvoy, Thomas
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Rendel, David


McCartney, Rt Hon Ian
Robertson, John


(Makerfield)
(Glasgow Anniesland)


McDonagh, Siobhain
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Macdonald, Calum
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


McDonnell, John
Rooney, Terry


McFall, John
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


McIsaac, Shona
Rowlands, Ted


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Roy, Frank


McNamara, Kevin
Ruane, Chris


McNulty, Tony
Ruddock, Joan


MacShane, Denis
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Mactaggart, Fiona
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


McWalter, Tony
Ryan, Ms Joan


McWilliam, John
Salter, Martin


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Sanders, Adrian


Mallaber, Judy
Sarwar, Mohammad


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Savidge, Malcolm


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Sawford, Phil


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Sedgemore, Brian


Martlew, Eric
Sheerman, Barry


Meale, Alan
Shipley, Ms Debra


Merron, Gillian
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Singh, Marsha


Michie, Bill (Shefld Heeley)
Skinner, Dennis


Milburn, Rt Hon Alan
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Miller, Andrew
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Mitchell, Austin
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Moffatt, Laura
Smith, Miss Geraldine


Moonie, Dr Lewis
(Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Moore, Michael
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Moran, Ms Margaret
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Morley, Elliot
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle
Snape, Peter


(B"ham Yardley)
Soley,Clive


Mountford, Kali
Southworth, Ms Helen


Mudie, George
Spellar, John


Mullin, Chris
Squire, Ms Rachel


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Steinberg, Gerry


Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)
Stevenson, George


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Norris, Dan
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Oaten, Mark
Stinchcombe, Paul


O"Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Stoate, Dr Howard


O"Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Strang, Rt Hon Gavin


O"Hara, Eddie
Straw,Rt Hon Jack


Olner, Bill
Stringer, Graham


O"Neill, Martin
Stuart, Ms Gisela


öpik, Lembit
Stunell, Andrew





Sutcliffe, Gerry
Walley, Ms Joan


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann
Ward, Ms Claire


(Dewsbury)
Wareing, Robert N


Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Watts, David


Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Webb, Steve


Temple-Morris, Peter
White, Brian


Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Wicks, Malcolm


Timms, Stephen
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Tipping, Paddy
(Swansea W)


Tonge, Dr Jenny
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Touhig, Don
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Trickett, Jon
Willis, Phil


Truswell, Paul
Wills, Michael


Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Wilson, Brian


Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)
Winnick, David


Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)
Woolas, Phil


Tumer, Neil (Wigan)
Worthington,Tony


Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)
Wright,Tonycannock)


Tyler, Paul
Wyatt,Derek


Tynan, Bill
Tellers for the Ayes:


Vaz, Keith
Mrs. Anne McGuire and


Vis, Dr Rudi
Mr.Jim Dowd.




NOES



Anisworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl


Amess, David
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Gray, James


Atkinson, David (Bour"mth E)
Green, Damian


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Greenway, John


Beggs, Roy
Grieve, Dominic


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Gummer, Rt Hon John


Bercow, John
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Beresford, Sir Paul
Hammond, Philip


Blunt, Crispin
Hawkins, Nick


Boswell, Tim
Hayes, John


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Bottomely, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas


Brady, Graham
Horam, John


Brazier, Julian
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Browning, Mrs Angela
Hunter, Andrew


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Bums, Simon
Jenkin, Bernard


Butterfill, John
Key, Robert


Cash, William
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


(Chipping Barnet)
Lansley, Andrew


Clappison, James
Leigh, Edward


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Letwin, Oliver


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


(Rushcliffe)
Lidington, David


Collins, Tim
Liley, Rt Hon Peter


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Lioyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Cran, James
Llwyd, Elfyn


Curry, Rt Hon David
Loughton, Tim


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Day, Stephen
Mclntosh, Miss Anne


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Mackey, Rt Hon Andrew


Duncan, Alan
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Duncan Smith, Iain
McLoughlin, Patrick


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
malins, Humfrey


Evans, Nigel
Maples, John



Fabricant, Michael
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Fallon, Michael
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Moss, Malcolm


Fox, Dr Liam
Nicholls, Patrick


Fraser, Christopher
O"Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Gale, Roger
Ottaway, Richard


Gamier, Edward
Page, Richard


Gibb, Nick
Paice, James


Gill, christopher
Pickles, Eric






Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Prioe, David
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Randall, John
Taylor,John M (Solihull)


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Tyalor,Sir Teddy


Robathan, Andrew
Thomas,Simon (Ceredigion)


Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)
Townend, John


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxboume)
Tradinnick, David


Ross, William (E Lond'y)
Trend, Michael


Ruffley, David
Walter, Robert


St Aubyn, Nick
Waterson, Nigel


Salmond, Alex
Wells, Bowen


Sayeed, Jonathan
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian
Whittingdale, John


Shepherd, Richard
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Wilkinson, John


Soames, Nicholas
Wiletts, David


Spelman, Mrs Caroline
Wilshire, David


Spicer, Sir Michael
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congletion)


Spring, Richard
Yeo, Tim


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Steen, Anthony



Streeter, Gary
Tellers for the Noes:


Swayne, Desmond
Mr. Peter Luff and


Syms, Robert
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Remaining Lords amendments agreed to [some with Special Entry].

Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to Lords amendment No. 130 to the Bill: Mr. Stephen Day, Mr. Mike O'Brien, Mr. Colin Pickthall, Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe and Mr. Robert Walter; Mr. Mike O'Brien to be the Chairman of the Committee; Three to be the quorum of the Committee.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

To withdraw immediately.

Reasons for disagreeing to Lords amendment No. 130 reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE

That the Local Government Finance (England) Special Grant Report (No. 70) on Threshold Payments (House of Commons Paper No. 963), which was laid before this House on 20th November, be approved.

That the Local Government Finance (England) Special Grant Report (No. 71) on Leadership Group Payments (House of Commons Paper No. 964), which was laid before this House on 20th November, be approved.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Agreement between the European Community and its Member States and the Swiss Confederation on the Free Movement of Persons) Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 20th November, be approved.-[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Question agreed to.

SELECT COMMITTEES (JOINT MEETINGS)

Motion made,

That, for the next Session of Parliament, Standing Order No. 152 (Select committees related to government departments) be amended as follows:

Line 37, before the word 'European' insert the words `Environmental Audit Committee or with the'.

Line 46, before the word 'European' insert the words `Environmental Audit Committee or with the'.

Line 48, at the end insert the words:

'(4A) notwithstanding paragraphs (2) and (4) above, where more than two committees or sub-committees appointed under this order meet concurrently in accordance with paragraph (4)(e) above, the quorum of each such committee or sub-committee shall be two.—[Mr. Mike Hall.

Hon. Members: Object.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made,

That, at the sittings on Thursday 30th November and Friday 1st December—

(i) the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until any Messages from the Lords shall have been received, and
(ii) if the House has completed its consideration of any Messages received from the Lords and the Lords have adjourned their sitting, the Speaker shall adjourn the House without Question put.-[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Hon. Members: Object.

PETITIONS

Lady McAdden Breast Screening Unit

Mr. David Amess: I have the honour to present a petition that has been signed by more than 21,500 people. The level of support for the petition demonstrates the very high esteem in which people have held the Lady McAdden breast screening unit for more than 24 years. The petitioners wish to express their concern at the way in which changing patterns of health care have impacted on the viability of the unit.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for Health to investigate and resolve the problems the Lady McAdden Breast Unit is experiencing within the South Essex Health Authority; to facilitate the restoration to the Unit of full access to appropriate facilities and referrals to the Southend Hospital NHS Trust and Southend Breast Unit; to facilitate the restoration to the Unit of the ability to screen all women by palpation with full consent from the Royal College of Nursing, the United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing and women themselves without fear of litigation; to review the conclusions of the 1998 White Paper on the availability of breast screening services to women under the age of 50 and the method of screening by palpation; to include screening for women under the age of 50 in the NHS screening programme; and to guarantee that the present activities of the Unit and its staff may continue without interference pending the Commission for Health Improvement's consideration of cancer services.
And your petitioners remain, etc.

To lie upon the Table.

Mixed-Sex Hospital Wards

Ms Debra Shipley: It is a great honour to present a petition generated in my Stourbridge constituency on behalf of members of the West Midlands Federation of Townswomen's Guilds. The petitioners declare that they dislike mixed-sex hospital wards because they are an affront to dignity and decency. I wholeheartedly agree with them.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for Health to make swift progress towards the removal of mixed-sex wards in hospitals.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.

To lie upon the Table.

Flood Management (Somerset)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mrs. McGuire.]

Mr. David Heath: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise again the issue of flood prevention in Somerset. I am particularly grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who I know was in Somerset today—at the village of Norton Sub Hamdon, not more than two miles outside my constituency, and at a school which I believe that I opened, as chairman of education, a few years ago.
The Minister will recall that we last debated the subject on 3 May 2000. It was an excellent debate in which we addressed some of the basic issues. He and I broadly agreed that, in flooding, prevention is better than cure. We also agreed on the need to address the issues of environmental sustainability and sustainability of the resources applied to flood prevention. We also recognised that the Somerset levels is a unique and internationally important environment that needs to be protected.
I have sought this debate, first, to alert the Minister to some of the events of the past few weeks; secondly, to report the very substantial progress towards the objectives that we set ourselves in the previous debate; and, thirdly, to express some serious concerns about financing land drainage.
Somerset has not experienced floods with the dramatic overtones of those in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker), or in the Severn valley, or around the Ouse, in Yorkshire. Flooding has, however, affected a number of properties in my constituency. It has not been confined to the levels area, where we expect annual winter flooding. It has taken place in areas of the upper catchment and in areas detached from the Parrett catchment. There have been problems in my constituency in the areas of Ilton; Yeovilton, where the Yeo burst its banks; Queen Camel, where the Cam and Henshall Brook caused problems in the middle of the village; Shepton Montague; and near Frome in Old Ford and Vobster. There have been several separate incidents, and they all represent tragedies for the families involved. There is also the common thread that there are insufficient resources to do some of the things that are necessary to protect the people of Somerset adequately, given the huge demands on services.
Although the Environment Agency has performed extremely well over the past few months, there are still some questions that I shall be putting to it. I shall be seeking answers from it and local authorities if I do not receive satisfaction from the Minister. My questions will relate to the warning system, the maintenance of culverts and drainage canals, local government funding and the uninsurable risk that many householders are facing.
I move on to progress on the River Parrett catchment project, as it is now termed. When we last debated the subject, the Minister effectively challenged me and the people in Somerset to get our heads together to combine the interests of local authorities, the Environment Agency, landowners, farming interests, environmentalists and the wider community in an endeavour to ascertain whether we could arrive at a common solution to the problems.
Substantial progress has been made to that effect. A seminar was held on 30 October, paradoxically when the River Tone was within inches of bursting its banks in Taunton. It was an apposite moment for the seminar to take place. It was attended by 60 representatives of all the interests involved. They were able to reach common ground—it was a significant breakthrough—in terms of the scale of the problem, the need to address the flood defence system urgently, and some of the things that could be done in terms of management of the upper catchment, where it was felt that there were ways of ensuring that when heavy rainfall took place the time that it takes for water to reach the main streams and rivers could be extended.
That could perhaps be done by land management, by cropping practices that help to maintain more water in the soil and reduce the speed of overland flow, by reducing flow rates in the tributary water courses and head water streams by creating baffles and meanders, by developing a strategic approach for retaining storm water from developed areas so that it does not add to the peak flows in streams and rivers, and by developing on-farm flood water storage areas through agreement with local farmers. That agreement is crucial because it will require some changes in agri-environmental schemes so that there are proper incentives. Farmers must be encouraged to participate in schemes.
The use of the flood plain needs to be considered in a different way from that in which it is now managed. Perhaps we should consider a more equitable distribution of flood water across the moors, and use some parts of the flood plain more frequently so that settlements are protected. There should be greater use of gravity drainage systems on parts of the flood plain, which can enable the water to drain effectively.
There have also been discussions on the proposals for a barrage or barrier across the River Parrett downstream of Bridgwater. I know that the Minister is concerned about that proposal. I ask him to examine what eventually emerges and objectively to assess it. It may represent a way of reducing some of the severer impacts of floods, and it may be cost-effective in reducing silt and thereby dredging.
A holistic approach along the lines that I have set out has the potential to pay dividends. Much progress has already been made. I pay tribute to the work of the county council, whose chairman, Humphrey Temperley, has played a leading role. Given the level of agreement that has been reached, I have considerable confidence that the major debate on these matters to be held early next year will agree on concrete plans that deal with prevention rather than cure, and which we will be able to bring to the Minister.
My plea to the Minister is to respect what he has said on earlier occasions and to look at those plans objectively. In that way he will be able to determine where it is possible to co-ordinate Government policy in this regard, and where it is possible to take a positive view.
I must also address the issues of finance and of the costs involved in land drainage in Somerset. I shall give the House some idea of the scale of the problem. In Somerset, 36,000 homes are identified as at risk, and very extensive protections are given to them. The county has 125 km of sea and tidal raised-bank defences, and 366 km of raised river bank defences. Of the latter, 17 km are in

poor condition and 189 km need some work to bring them up to an acceptable standard. That is a substantial backlog of work.
The county also has 21 pumping stations. Most of them are elderly and date back to the 1940s, with the newest built in 1968. Many are obsolete and unreliable, none have a proper planned maintenance programme, and 10 require urgent upgrading.
It is clear that the county faces a significant problem, the financing for which is shared among a relatively small population. The Minister knows that the Somerset flood defence committee has an annual budget of about £6 million. Most of that total comes from a levy, and most of the levy is paid by Somerset county council taxpayers—a cost of £26 per annum for each band D property in the area. That is the highest in the country, and amounts to a significant impost on the people who have to pay it.
Over recent years, there have been large increases in the precept. Two years ago, it was raised by 11.5 per cent, and last year by 8.2 per cent. The present backlog of work, the council's need effectively to borrow ahead to deal with significant capital projects, and the effects of this year's flooding all mean that the Somerset flood defence committee now faces a precept increase of something like 28 per cent.
As the Minister knows, the system of finance is extremely complicated. The sums involved can be recovered through the revenue support grant and the standard spending assessment, but only in the following year. That does not prevent local authority finances undergoing a major distortion.
Even before the current full review of flood defence funding is in a position to report, local authorities in Somerset have advanced a cogent case for what must be done to reform the system. First, they say that flood defence spending should be disregarded for the purposes of council tax benefit subsidy limitation. That is what happens with the police authority precept, and there is no logic in placing the flood defence precept—which is also substantial—within that limitation.
Secondly, the authorities say that there is a need to ensure that the SSA or revenue support grant pass-through mechanism operates on a current-year basis, rather than a year in arrears. They also say that it is necessary to provide for the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions control figures to be increased on a current-year spending basis. In addition, they say that, when the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food grants aid capital, revenue funds are needed so that maintenance moneys are not diverted to support those capital schemes. Finally, they consider that it is necessary to treat flood defence spending by the unitary and district councils in the county on the same basis as the Environment Agency levy spending.
I realise that the Minister is not in a position to say that all those proposals will be accepted this evening. However, I ask him seriously to consider the distortions caused by these unique circumstances. We have an internationally important wetland area in which people are uniquely vulnerable to floods and that is likely to continue in the foreseeable future. As the area is sparsely populated, it does not have enormous revenue income or capital sums available. Does the Minister agree that those factors, put together, represent a special case?
Secondly, can the money that is available be used more effectively in the sort of way that those at the Parrett catchment project suggest? Rather than building higher and higher walls to keep the water out, we should try to manage the floods in Somerset in a way that is effective, environmentally sensible and more responsive to the needs of the local community. I suggest that what is happening in gestation in the project in Somerset, provided it has Government support in due course, could act as a pilot study for other parts of the country.
There is a wider view—we have tested it in the Chamber, and I know that the Minister has some sympathy with it—that we cannot go on dealing with floods in the way that we have done hitherto. We need to address the problem in a different way, and the way that is being developed here has great merit. It will require departmental co-ordination, and it will be necessary to mobilise funding that is not automatically provided for these purposes. However, I think that any cost benefit analysis will show that this is a sensible application of funds to a defined and positive outcome, preferable to wasting funds on developing a solution that is not sustainable in the long term. That is why I am so strongly in favour of what is being discussed.
When we last spoke about this issue, the Minister said at the end of his speech:
However, I stress that local people should come together and agree a long-term management plan based on river catchments…I shall be only too willing to examine the proposals and respond as positively as I can.—[Official Report, 3 May 2000; Vol. 349, c. 274.]
Those words were of great encouragement to the people who are working on this project. The Minister displayed the openness to reasonable and rational debate that we have come to expect of him. I hope that that view is shared by the civil servants in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I hope that we can ensure that discussions take place at the highest level on some of the issues and stumbling blocks. Most of all, I hope that the Minister will look very carefully and positively at what emerges from Somerset, as he said he would.
If the hon. Gentleman's all-too-brief visit to Somerset today has whetted his appetite —perhaps that is an inappropriate word to use—to see what is happening on the levels and talk to some of the people there, I would be delighted to welcome him to my constituency to look at a forward-thinking project. I hope that in doing so he would take away a favourable impression which would encourage him to mobilise the resources to enable the project to take off.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) on obtaining this debate and on putting his case in such a persuasive way. I get all sorts of offers in this job, but to go to the hon. Gentleman's constituency and discuss these issues is an attractive offer. He has rightly made the points that, because of its wetlands, the area that he represents is of international importance, and that there are serious flood management issues.
I acknowledge his point that the Somerset levels have experienced regular flooding for some years—it is almost an annual occurrence. Although it is a flood plain, people live and work there, so we must strike a balance between the needs of an internationally important wetland and those of people in the area, who need to use its roads and who need to work there.
As the hon. Gentleman pointed out in a previous debate, I gave strong encouragement to local people who were working together to try to address some of the issues and some of the long-standing and potential conflicts between the demands of conservation and those of local people and of agriculture. I am glad that a meeting was held on 30 October and I welcome the high-level conference in February. They represent attempts to make progress on those matters.
I have read some of the submissions made by local organisations—the National Farmers Union, the Country Landowners Association, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the Environment Agency. Those organisations are finding common ground and coming to a common agreement on dealing with the issues. I strongly endorse the point made by the hon. Gentleman that the approach to flood and water management in Somerset must be integrated, holistic and sustainable. That is the key objective that we must work towards.
I welcome the development of management catchment plans. I pay tribute to Humphrey Temperley, the chair of Somerset county council, and to the Somerset flood defence committee for their role in trying to develop those matters and find consensus. That is most important.
I accept the hon. Gentleman's point that we need to give some thought to such matters as the management of other catchments, land management, cropping and planting regimes, and river management. We need to examine whether river flows can be widened; the hon. Gentleman referred to meanders and the installation of baffles to try to hold back more water. We should perhaps consider a more sophisticated approach to water retention at times of peak flow. All those issues are worthy of consideration.
The importance of the area is recognised in the fact that the Somerset levels are designated as environmentally sensitive. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, there are different rates of payment in relation to management tiers for dealing with water management. That is a helpful advantage; it gives us an opportunity to consider how we can integrate more environmental management in the various agri-environment schemes for water management. I have to enter the caveat that agri-environment schemes must produce environmental outcomes. That is how we account for the schemes; they are audited both within the Government and by the European Union, which is ultimately responsible for them.
It should not be impossible, however, to take a more integrated and holistic approach towards agri-environment schemes while achieving both environmental outcomes and water catchment objectives. At present, the matter is being considered and discussed, but it has not been subject to major development. I am extremely interested in giving more thought to the matter, to find out what we can do to take it further. It represents a new dimension in water management, but it meets the need for an integrated, holistic and sustainable approach.
There are possibilities to be explored in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and in other Departments—for example, in MAFF in relation to our funds for agri-environment schemes and for flood defence. An integrated approach may not be as easy as it sounds, although the logic seems overwhelming, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am keen to explore such matters to see what can be done. In that respect, I shall be extremely interested in the outcome of the February meeting and to hear the suggestions of local people on how they might be applied. The Environment Agency is closely involved. There is technical support and advice on what is and is not feasible. That applies to any barrage proposal for the River Parrett.
I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman an undertaking to consider any proposal. Again, the caveat is that any proposal for an expensive scheme, such as a barrage, must be subject to exactly the same criteria as we would apply to any technical flood defence measure—it must meet technical and environmental standards and economic criteria. There has to be a cost-benefit analysis and such a scheme must meet the technical standard in achieving what it is designed to do. With that caveat, I am more than willing to consider any proposal and to test them against those criteria.
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the funding of flood defences is complex and considerable demands have been made on resources in Somerset in recent years. MAFF has actively supported the Environment Agency and its predecessor in constructing flood defences in Somerset, which has enjoyed a high grant. There has been a high levy, but the higher the levy, the greater the grant that Somerset receives. During the past 20 years, approximately 20 km of defences has been improved to a 1:100 year standard or better. The Minehead sea defences scheme was completed in 1998, at a cost £12.7 million—a significant investment in Somerset.
We are giving attention to tidal and fluvial schemes. Given the recent autumn floods, we recognise the need to consider rivers in particular. We are providing exceptional support to emergency works on the River Parrett's banks this year. Two major schemes are planned for 2001 on the Lower Tone at Baltmoor wall—a £2 million scheme—and at Stanmoor bank, a £3 million scheme. The medium-term programme indicates expenditure of about £8.4 million during the next four years. The agency has set out the need for substantial increases in expenditure in Somerset to fund those new capital works and the increased maintenance that is also required. As the hon. Gentleman said, a significant increase in levies might be required in Somerset.
Somerset has been responsible in meeting its requirements on flood defence. In fact, it has been better than one or two other counties in the south-west, as the hon. Gentleman may be aware. I make no criticism of Somerset; it has taken the issue seriously and has not been

afraid to raise the appropriate levy. Of course it has been rewarded for doing so—it has received substantial grant aid from the Ministry.
The necessary flood defences are being identified. When they have been identified, they will be addressed. The hon. Gentleman may be aware that MAFF has announced additional funding in relation to the autumn floods. An additional £51 million is available for flood defence works. That money comes on top of our existing programme, which was being increased. As a result of that additional money, we will be able to increase the grant rate for river flood defence schemes by 20 per cent. We are also providing additional funding for catchment studies, which will inform decisions on flood management on a catchment basis. The additional money for catchment studies may be useful given what may be the outcome of the high-level conference in February. We shall consider the issues that the hon. Gentleman has raised, such as upper catchment management, and whether we can apply them to a whole catchment plan. We have some funds to pay for those studies.
The hon. Gentleman is also right to say that the chairman of the Somerset local flood defence committee has written to me about the way in which the increases could be funded. He asked a series of complex questions on local government finance and the way in which the flood defence schemes are funded. They are complicated, but I appreciate the point. I can give the undertaking that I will reply to the questions as soon as possible, following consultation with my colleagues in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.
Such questions are not unfamiliar to me—one or two other local authorities have raised them. I see the logic in their case and I am willing to consider the matter. We are also undertaking a full review of the way in which funding is raised for flood defence schemes. That started before the present round of autumn flooding and is due to report in autumn 2001.
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman. I do not think that there is much between us on the issue. We both want a sustainable and holistic approach to flood management in Somerset. I am not afraid to consider new approaches. They have to be properly evaluated. Obviously, our professionals in the Ministry, who have years of experience, need to look into the matter. The specialists in the Environment Agency also need to consider it.
Given the pressures, however, with what may be a range of changes in weather patterns and increased rainfall, we must consider all the options. I am willing to do so and I certainly look forward to the outcome of discussions in local groups and organisations in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and area, which will provide an input into informed choices for the way forward.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at one minute past One o'clock.